It’s interesting to observe the role that news media plays in our modern society. Throughout this course, we have learned about the various media eras and the changing ways in which people have regarded news sources over time. Today, we are in the midst of the fragmented media era, with new technology like online journalism and blogging becoming increasingly widespread. Although this has led to an increased availability and diversification of news--from video bloggers responding to political policies to Twitter accounts from major news sources like CNN--the fragmented media era may ultimately be contributing to the deterioration of trust in news media.
A few months ago, the New York Times reported that trust in news media had reached a new low. Among the 1,506 people interviewed by the Pew Research Center, 63 percent said that news articles were often inaccurate. Although its no secret that trust in the media’s dependability has fluctuated since the 1980s, these recent numbers show a big increase in distrust of the overall news industry. In 2007, 39 percent of interviewed Americans said that the media typically tends to “get the facts straight,” compared to a low 29 percent today.
Interestingly enough, many of cited a lack of neutrality as their primary cause of distrust in the media. 74 percent said that news sources favor one political side in their reporting on current issues, with their biases stemming from an influence by powerful groups or interests. This statement is reminiscent of the themes of the partisan media era that lasted through the mid 19th-century. While this time period was characterized by party ownership or editorial control of newspapers, it resulted in a limited spread of knowledge and hyper-partisanship in media coverage. This control of reported news correlates with the limitation of truly unbiased news in our modern media era. Although our newspapers may not be explicitly owned by political parties, many owners of publishing companies and television networks have strong political affiliations that certainly color their portrayal and interpretation of current events. The article also specified that while negative opinion has grown among both Democratic and Republican parties since 2007, there has been a more significant increase in skepticism among Democrats. Not surprisingly, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to view CNN and MSNBC favorably, while Fox News was seen much more positively by Republicans than Democrats. This divide has always been typical, since Fox News has a reputation for being more conservative and politically biased than other networks.
I find it surprising that the percentage of Democrats calling the media untrustworthy has increased so much over the last two years. Factors like the recent, heated presidential campaign may have originally been contributing factors, but President Obama’s fixed role in the news seems like it would have a healing effect on Democratic nonbelievers. Whatever the cause, distrust in the commercial news media will surely contribute to the increased importance of news spread through blogs and raw materials like video and photographic coverage of events.
-Sarah
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Blogger Rights Around the Globe
As a Mass Media blogger, I feel a new sense of camaraderie with bloggers everywhere. There is something undeniably powerful and addictive about spewing out one’s innermost thoughts and potentially receiving instant responses from all over the world. For this reason, I felt oddly defensive when I recently read this article about people being punished for their honest blogging.
The article is a defense piece on bloggers’ rights to free speech in a world where blogs are growing increasingly vital to the spread of news. Over the past ten years, blogging has expanded from a foreign tool to a commonplace form of self-expression. The accessibility of blogs makes it easy for “normal” people to share their opinions on political affairs while simultaneously allowing prominent political characters to reach the public on a personal level. Although this is a wonderful part of our technologically-oriented society, the explicit nature of blogging can also make it a dangerous tool. This past summer, a blogger from the former Soviet republic of Georgia was met with a massive cyber attack in response to his opinionated posts. Many were furious by the interferences this blogger encountered, simply for voicing honest critiques. Blogging can be a completely uninhibited act, with a powerful sense of anonymity allowing for uncensored rants and raves, however socially unacceptable. Is it fair for outside parties to demand censorship on blogs that they find inappropriate?
These parties extend from disgruntled readers to government figures, as well. Many governments across the globe block access to major websites such as Blogger, Twitter and YouTube. This past summer one of my friends studied abroad in China and was shocked to find that her access to websites like PerezHilton.com and Facebook was blocked, forcing her to receive news updates through e-mails from friends and family. This blatant act of government-imposed censorship seems completely foreign to me; after all, Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights has been imprinted in my brain since my seventh grade history class. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” the Article reads. Free speech is a commonly praised and precious aspect of American society and bloggers across the country should feel fortunate to have such unlimited communicative rights.
I can’t help but wonder, however, whether or not the value of our right to free speech is lessened by its lack of universality. Can honest commentaries on American politics and foreign affairs be as influential without a strong readership from citizens of other countries? The scope of our blogging powers may be wide, but if it only extends to our American borders, is it being unfairly limited?
-Sarah
The article is a defense piece on bloggers’ rights to free speech in a world where blogs are growing increasingly vital to the spread of news. Over the past ten years, blogging has expanded from a foreign tool to a commonplace form of self-expression. The accessibility of blogs makes it easy for “normal” people to share their opinions on political affairs while simultaneously allowing prominent political characters to reach the public on a personal level. Although this is a wonderful part of our technologically-oriented society, the explicit nature of blogging can also make it a dangerous tool. This past summer, a blogger from the former Soviet republic of Georgia was met with a massive cyber attack in response to his opinionated posts. Many were furious by the interferences this blogger encountered, simply for voicing honest critiques. Blogging can be a completely uninhibited act, with a powerful sense of anonymity allowing for uncensored rants and raves, however socially unacceptable. Is it fair for outside parties to demand censorship on blogs that they find inappropriate?
These parties extend from disgruntled readers to government figures, as well. Many governments across the globe block access to major websites such as Blogger, Twitter and YouTube. This past summer one of my friends studied abroad in China and was shocked to find that her access to websites like PerezHilton.com and Facebook was blocked, forcing her to receive news updates through e-mails from friends and family. This blatant act of government-imposed censorship seems completely foreign to me; after all, Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights has been imprinted in my brain since my seventh grade history class. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” the Article reads. Free speech is a commonly praised and precious aspect of American society and bloggers across the country should feel fortunate to have such unlimited communicative rights.
I can’t help but wonder, however, whether or not the value of our right to free speech is lessened by its lack of universality. Can honest commentaries on American politics and foreign affairs be as influential without a strong readership from citizens of other countries? The scope of our blogging powers may be wide, but if it only extends to our American borders, is it being unfairly limited?
-Sarah
Sarah Palin: Unwilling Media Starlet or Skillful Career Woman?
Throughout the past year, Sarah Palin has been a key character in various political blogs and media outlets. When John McCain announced that the Alaska Governor would be his vice presidential running mate in August 2008, news sites around the world exploded with nonstop Palin coverage. No aspect of her life went unexamined, with everything from her political opinions to her teenage daughter's pregnancy becoming front page material.
Today, the once-mysterious vice presidential candidate has become more accustomed to the exploitative aspects of political fame. This summer, she announced that she would be resigning as governor of Alaska in a supposed attempt to shield her family from the invasive press.
In spite of her recent career change, Palin has been more active than ever in the public eye, taking on a major commercial tour to promote her newest campaign: a book about her life. The book, entitled Going Rogue, discusses her vice presidential campaign and experience under the media's scrutinizing gaze. Going Rogue discusses now-infamous moments from the campaign, including Palin's botched interview with Katie Couric and prank call from a radio DJ pretending to be Nicolas Sarkozy. Palin lines the book with innocent explanations for why she was portrayed as a “villain” by the evil, biased media. Clips of some of Palin’s biggest bloopers can be found on YouTube.com, along with various other montages chronicling Palin's most unflattering moments. With the sheer amount of anti-Palin websites and groups scattered across the Internet, I would venture to say that Palin opponents are as passionate and dedicated to their cause as Obama supporters. It makes it difficult for Palin to truly argue that her poor public image was a result of biases in the media; the power of the fragmented media era is that interview clips and unedited answers are available to the public at the click of button.
Although Palin has publicly spoken out against the media attention her and her family have received throughout the past year, her recent actions have given a different message. With her new book has come a media blitz and major tour of press circuits across the country. Palin has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and has made several public statements about her recent feud with David Letterman regarding comments he made about her daughter. Her actions clearly contradict her supposed disapproval for media frenzies, with her new book and publicity tour reading as a hungry quest for increased fame. It makes me wonder whether or not she was ever really in it for the politics; was her campaign truly a quest to remodel America's values and policies, or was it merely a stepping stone to fame? Her recent behaviors are more representative of an aspiring B-list celebrity on a quest for higher fame than a devoted politician fighting for social change. The ease with which she dropped her responsibilities as governor of Alaska and embarked on a media tour suggest an ultimate desire for public attention; the supposedly "private" politician turned author even has her very own Twitter account! In this day of the fragmented era, is it even possible for public figures to maintain any semblance of privacy, or are they all eventually destined to become fixtures of the media industry?
-Sarah
In spite of her recent career change, Palin has been more active than ever in the public eye, taking on a major commercial tour to promote her newest campaign: a book about her life. The book, entitled Going Rogue, discusses her vice presidential campaign and experience under the media's scrutinizing gaze. Going Rogue discusses now-infamous moments from the campaign, including Palin's botched interview with Katie Couric and prank call from a radio DJ pretending to be Nicolas Sarkozy. Palin lines the book with innocent explanations for why she was portrayed as a “villain” by the evil, biased media. Clips of some of Palin’s biggest bloopers can be found on YouTube.com, along with various other montages chronicling Palin's most unflattering moments. With the sheer amount of anti-Palin websites and groups scattered across the Internet, I would venture to say that Palin opponents are as passionate and dedicated to their cause as Obama supporters. It makes it difficult for Palin to truly argue that her poor public image was a result of biases in the media; the power of the fragmented media era is that interview clips and unedited answers are available to the public at the click of button.
Although Palin has publicly spoken out against the media attention her and her family have received throughout the past year, her recent actions have given a different message. With her new book has come a media blitz and major tour of press circuits across the country. Palin has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and has made several public statements about her recent feud with David Letterman regarding comments he made about her daughter. Her actions clearly contradict her supposed disapproval for media frenzies, with her new book and publicity tour reading as a hungry quest for increased fame. It makes me wonder whether or not she was ever really in it for the politics; was her campaign truly a quest to remodel America's values and policies, or was it merely a stepping stone to fame? Her recent behaviors are more representative of an aspiring B-list celebrity on a quest for higher fame than a devoted politician fighting for social change. The ease with which she dropped her responsibilities as governor of Alaska and embarked on a media tour suggest an ultimate desire for public attention; the supposedly "private" politician turned author even has her very own Twitter account! In this day of the fragmented era, is it even possible for public figures to maintain any semblance of privacy, or are they all eventually destined to become fixtures of the media industry?
-Sarah
Friday, December 11, 2009
Hope for the Fragmented?- End of the Semester
Throughout the course of the semester we have been talking about the future of the media in today's world. Being in what Darrell M. West calls the fragmented media era-- the era of bloggers and online news-- we have to wonder what is next for the mass media. West himself suggests scenarios in which the media either becomes increasingly more fragmented, or reacts conversely by re-forming together and distilling back into fewer main sources. Personally, I think it more likely that the fragmented media will continue to become more and more fragmented; the popularity of blogs and the accessibility of news and entertainment online is too convenient and stimulating for the masses to die out any time soon. However, does the fragmented media necessarily have to be a bad thing? In my recent blogging I've talked about important things, such as the exposition of bullying through online video sharing or the use of Twitter for social change, that demonstrate how positive and useful the widespread accessibility of the fragmented media can be. Yes, it's true that now that just anyone can start a blog, it might become harder to find reliable sources, but this also works positively: because it's now so easy for anyone to access and spread media via the internet, stories that might not have been shared can now become publicly available. I think that in order to keep functioning in the fragmented media era we have to become smart about knowing our sources and finding credible information, and also learn how to use the widespread accessibility of the internet media to our advantage instead of simply seeing it as dangerous.
-Miranda
-Miranda
Social Networking = Social Change?
In addition to connecting people, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter can also serve as tools for social change. A friend sent me this article about an activist’s website and tweets that helped raise awareness about his video exposing the horror of homelessness in America.
This got me thinking about the potential of social networking sites to motivate people and raise awareness about social issues. For example, the “Groups” function on Facebook started out as a way for friends to connect and share information—I remember being a part of silly groups like “Med O Lark Summer Camp 05!” and “I love chocolate!” when I first got Facebook—but now there are a lot of groups that exist for social change. Almost every major environmental organization, for example, has a Facebook group, as do political and other social organizations: check out these groups for Greenpeace, MoveOn.org and Unicef to get an idea. In addition to groups, Facebook also fairly recently introduced the “Causes” application. You can choose to become a supporter of a certain cause and receive updates on progress, participate in discussions with other supporters and find out about events (in addition to letting all your friends see that you support that cause.) I think it’s heartening that social networking websites are starting to be used for more than just posting silly party pictures , and with the number of active users on Twitter and Facebook, there is certainly great potential for rallying activism if causes use these sites to their advantage.
This got me thinking about the potential of social networking sites to motivate people and raise awareness about social issues. For example, the “Groups” function on Facebook started out as a way for friends to connect and share information—I remember being a part of silly groups like “Med O Lark Summer Camp 05!” and “I love chocolate!” when I first got Facebook—but now there are a lot of groups that exist for social change. Almost every major environmental organization, for example, has a Facebook group, as do political and other social organizations: check out these groups for Greenpeace, MoveOn.org and Unicef to get an idea. In addition to groups, Facebook also fairly recently introduced the “Causes” application. You can choose to become a supporter of a certain cause and receive updates on progress, participate in discussions with other supporters and find out about events (in addition to letting all your friends see that you support that cause.) I think it’s heartening that social networking websites are starting to be used for more than just posting silly party pictures , and with the number of active users on Twitter and Facebook, there is certainly great potential for rallying activism if causes use these sites to their advantage.
WhiteHouse.Gov- A Polioptic Analysis
Thinking about guest speaker Joshua King’s lecture, I decided to go explore the White House website and see what principles of “polioptics” I could uncover in President Obama’s “Photo and Video” section. The link takes you directly to a scrolling slide show of Obama’s “Photos of the Day” from the past month. These pictures have clearly been selected and formulated to depict a broad range of things—both “normal,” everyday-type images and shots of Obama in meetings or at speeches. Knowing what I now do about polioptics, I find it difficult to look at any picture of the President and/or his family without thinking about how planned it must be. Even the picture of Bo, the family dog, looking happy in front of a White House Christmas tree, I now know has been expressly taken and chosen to portray Obama in a certain way--- in this case, a normal, pet-loving, Christian family man. Another interesting thing about this photo section is the number of images depicting the apparently fairy-tale-esque relationship of Barack and Michelle Obama. There are pictures of them doing everything from waltzing gracefully at the Nobel Banquet to smiling with their daughters, always looking happily in love. Again, the inclusion of these images is clearly with the aim of showing Obama as a wholesome, caring man, a good husband and father. The video section shows a similar breadth; there are many videos of Obama’s speeches and conferences, but also many of him doing other, “normal” things, like lighting a Christmas tree or this one of him visiting an Allentown, PA factory to “take the temperature on what Americans are experiencing during these challenging economic times.”
This video is clearly supposed to show working viewers that Obama cares about their experience. Like everything else in this section, though, it has clearly been expressly formulated, as Joshua King suggested with his lecture on polioptics, to project a pre-determined image of President Obama; nothing is candid, and every move he makes has been pre-planned.
-Miranda
This video is clearly supposed to show working viewers that Obama cares about their experience. Like everything else in this section, though, it has clearly been expressly formulated, as Joshua King suggested with his lecture on polioptics, to project a pre-determined image of President Obama; nothing is candid, and every move he makes has been pre-planned.
-Miranda
Don't Post Your Bullying Videos on MySpace...
With blogs and internet publishing tools available to everyone, more and more people are posting their stories and opinions for the world to see. Blogs and social media can be a great resource for connecting and sharing, but in the recent case of 15-year-old Alexis Xanders, they can also help bring justice.
This article and video popped up on my CNN.com home page yesterday:
This poor girl’s assailants apparently thought it would be funny to videotape themselves beating her up—maybe to show everyone in their social networking communities how “tough” they are--- and post it online. Through the use of MySpace, Xanders herself gained access to the video and posted it on CNN.com’s iReport—a tool for readers to post their own news. Many people are concerned with the danger of so much information being accessible on social networking sites like MySpace—however, this is an example of a situation in which public accessibility to a user’s videos actually helped this bullying victim get help. The use of iReport also highlights another advantage of the digital age as far as news and media reporting goes: anyone can do it, even a 15-year-old. Through the use and sheer availability of sharing resources online, Xanders was able to share her story with the world and ultimately land her assailants in court. While we can’t hope that everyone instance of bullying and harassment will be so conveniently video taped and posted online, this case is a real testament to the potential of social media as a tool for illuminating crime and helping prevent future incidents.
-Miranda
This article and video popped up on my CNN.com home page yesterday:
This poor girl’s assailants apparently thought it would be funny to videotape themselves beating her up—maybe to show everyone in their social networking communities how “tough” they are--- and post it online. Through the use of MySpace, Xanders herself gained access to the video and posted it on CNN.com’s iReport—a tool for readers to post their own news. Many people are concerned with the danger of so much information being accessible on social networking sites like MySpace—however, this is an example of a situation in which public accessibility to a user’s videos actually helped this bullying victim get help. The use of iReport also highlights another advantage of the digital age as far as news and media reporting goes: anyone can do it, even a 15-year-old. Through the use and sheer availability of sharing resources online, Xanders was able to share her story with the world and ultimately land her assailants in court. While we can’t hope that everyone instance of bullying and harassment will be so conveniently video taped and posted online, this case is a real testament to the potential of social media as a tool for illuminating crime and helping prevent future incidents.
-Miranda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)