There are four people who have in their mind one thing, will they run for president? These people are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee. Not only are they thinking about running for president, they are making a fat pay check for no reason at all. Fox News asked for one favor, and that is to keep their information to themselves. If they do so, they will be handed a pay check. It is as almost there four people are exclusive to Fox News. This is starting a little spark and anger between other news stations.
These four paying contributors are starting to piss off the news networks, and starting to create rivals. All the rivals want is some feedback of what is happening and keeping updated on the Presidential race, and they cant receive nothing. They are almost as if they were called, "the Fox candidates." Fox doesn't own these people, so it is really not fair to the others. C-Span tried interviewing Palin, and Palin straight up said she needed permission from Fox, if not then sorry. This same thing happened to several other news stations.
Fox news stated that once these people are elected or declared Presidency, they have all the rights to deal with the media. Even though the (president) will be being interviewed for being elected president at the time, they probably will be also be getting shit from news networks on why they never talked before. Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huckabee are not being forced at any time to keep quiet and stick with Fox, as a matter in fact, they can bounce when ever they want. They signed a contract, but it can be broken at any time.
To me i feel like so far Fox are been in power over these candidates with one tool, and that is the paycheck. The longer these four remain "undecided," the longer and the fatter the paycheck with be. With this paycheck it prevents these people from talking with any other news networks. To me it isnt fair to the others, but at the same time, its business. So far this year surprisingly, none of the four have appeared on any other television, except for Gingrich. He has appeared two times on ABC, and three times on NBC in January. I wonder if he asked for permission or felt that he should. I wonder if anything has happened ever since that incident. But on the other hand Palin appeared in Iowa, and they were disappointed that she failed to meet with the local officials, and wouldn't take any advice. Yet, she followed her orders like she should have.
This whole thing i believe is about the power a news network can gain over people. And to me, they are doing a pretty good job. For them to keep four HUGE people that may take roll in our country one day mouths shut, is pretty big. This person can make a huge impact on our lives, and we can't even find out what or how they will. But we can find out on the Fox News.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Can Media Regain Public Trust?
Many studies show that people don't trust the media. According to Pew Research Center, it shows that only 29% people and viewers believe that the news get their facts straight. Bu the media is a mixture of a bunch of things. It is filled with news, facts, opinions, and analysis's. Many articles and writing from journalist are based on their opinions using facts they gather to support their sides. The results show that only 18% of the people believe that the press deals fairly with all sides of an issue. So don't you blame the public to no trust the media, when they are trying to side you. Believe it or not the press and journalist like to rely and favor the high government officials because they work in a high professional culture just like them. Sad to say, 71% of the people see the press as a necessary watchdog on the government, this doesn't sound right does it? They are basically trying to use the government for answers.
I personally believe either way if you try to believe the Media or not, you'll always receive some kind of false information. Journalist know how to make you side with them on some arguments, because they are smart like that. They use the Normative Theory which deals with the ideal ways to structure and operate a news system. Using this, journalist use facts, specific details, investigation notes, and analysis's to prove to their audience that they are right.
Journalism is a thing that uses sources to gain control over some democracy. Michael Schudson writes a book, "Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press," and this provides us with some good feedback. In the book he refers that good journalism needs seven things for the news for the use of democracy. You start out with information, investigation, analysis, creating social empathy, facilitating a public forum, mobilization, and end with publicizing a representative democracy. Schudson then argues that journalist are obsessed with facts and events, they never focus on their own power over the situation. They also focus on confrontation and the outsider status, but yet these are foundations that must be removed if the journalist want to gain trust from their audience.
No matter if the journalist care about if the audience believe them or not, they aren't free people. Journalist aren't free agents, they are constrained by a set of complex institutional relations which leads them to opinions and idea's, especially on high government officials. This is proof of why they get so wound up on them. But i believe if we didn't have media, then there would be no way they the people would know what is happening around the world. Media is a tool to store and deliver information to what is to be told.
I personally believe either way if you try to believe the Media or not, you'll always receive some kind of false information. Journalist know how to make you side with them on some arguments, because they are smart like that. They use the Normative Theory which deals with the ideal ways to structure and operate a news system. Using this, journalist use facts, specific details, investigation notes, and analysis's to prove to their audience that they are right.
Journalism is a thing that uses sources to gain control over some democracy. Michael Schudson writes a book, "Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press," and this provides us with some good feedback. In the book he refers that good journalism needs seven things for the news for the use of democracy. You start out with information, investigation, analysis, creating social empathy, facilitating a public forum, mobilization, and end with publicizing a representative democracy. Schudson then argues that journalist are obsessed with facts and events, they never focus on their own power over the situation. They also focus on confrontation and the outsider status, but yet these are foundations that must be removed if the journalist want to gain trust from their audience.
No matter if the journalist care about if the audience believe them or not, they aren't free people. Journalist aren't free agents, they are constrained by a set of complex institutional relations which leads them to opinions and idea's, especially on high government officials. This is proof of why they get so wound up on them. But i believe if we didn't have media, then there would be no way they the people would know what is happening around the world. Media is a tool to store and deliver information to what is to be told.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
California's Governor's Race
As I was learning more about the governor's race, it actually change my views on Whitman and Brown a lot. I haven't really been paying attention to the campaign at all, and the only information that I was really getting was off their advertisements on television. I noticed that when they both advertise themselves on TV, they try to make themselves look better then they really are. Both Brown and Whitman say they will pull California out of the "hard time." I personally fell like this is a fib, because not ONE person can make such a dramatic change to the State.
I absolutely, first off did not know that Meg Whitman was 54 years old, and have two children. She is a republican. That shocked me a lot. Then as I was reading more, I noticed that Meg attended Princeton and Harvard; who would have thought. She is well known of her name through her former CEO Presidential. She even is the Vice President of The Walt Disney Company. How random is that? Whitman supports the rights to bear arms, favors Prop 4 and also supports Prop 8. That was very unusual because not many people support Prop 8. I feel that if Meg eliminates pension, lays off 40,000 workers, and propose to contracting out work; the would will be in a downfall. She already spend $118 on herself and her campaign alone, maybe she is trying to hard?
On the other hand there is Jerry Brown. Jerry is a democrat and lives in Oakland, Ca. He also went to school nearby me, in Berkley, and also Yale. He received a bachelors degree in classics at Berkley, and a law degree at Yale. Apparently when Jerry ran for Governor in the 1900's, he failed the state miserably. I believe if he gets elected, the same thing will happen the last time he tried. Everyone lost jobs and the money became a big issue. Brown on the other hand supports full time workers pensions, health care reforms, and wants to create more jobs. He doesn't believe in the death penalty, and the legalization of pot. Where as Brown, he wants to try to help the state by cutting taxes by $4 billion, but I highly doubt he will be about to do.
Either way, on November 2, 2010, someone will become Governor of the state of California. Both electives have opposite opinions, and one way may work and another may not. The state will go in even deeper depression, and we might spring out of it. Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown both have great idea's in my opinion, and I am looking forwards in seeing what will happen in a couple months.
I absolutely, first off did not know that Meg Whitman was 54 years old, and have two children. She is a republican. That shocked me a lot. Then as I was reading more, I noticed that Meg attended Princeton and Harvard; who would have thought. She is well known of her name through her former CEO Presidential. She even is the Vice President of The Walt Disney Company. How random is that? Whitman supports the rights to bear arms, favors Prop 4 and also supports Prop 8. That was very unusual because not many people support Prop 8. I feel that if Meg eliminates pension, lays off 40,000 workers, and propose to contracting out work; the would will be in a downfall. She already spend $118 on herself and her campaign alone, maybe she is trying to hard?
On the other hand there is Jerry Brown. Jerry is a democrat and lives in Oakland, Ca. He also went to school nearby me, in Berkley, and also Yale. He received a bachelors degree in classics at Berkley, and a law degree at Yale. Apparently when Jerry ran for Governor in the 1900's, he failed the state miserably. I believe if he gets elected, the same thing will happen the last time he tried. Everyone lost jobs and the money became a big issue. Brown on the other hand supports full time workers pensions, health care reforms, and wants to create more jobs. He doesn't believe in the death penalty, and the legalization of pot. Where as Brown, he wants to try to help the state by cutting taxes by $4 billion, but I highly doubt he will be about to do.
Either way, on November 2, 2010, someone will become Governor of the state of California. Both electives have opposite opinions, and one way may work and another may not. The state will go in even deeper depression, and we might spring out of it. Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown both have great idea's in my opinion, and I am looking forwards in seeing what will happen in a couple months.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?
Do you think Journalism will change as time goes on? I honestly think journalism wont change. I mean what more can you change about it. Journalism is basically stating facts about an event, and putting some opinions and quotes into the story. High end journalism requires essential information about our government and society. This is a profession, not something to mess around with. To be a writer, you have to be fully committed; like a full time job, and trained from day one. I believe in two theories about journalism; one is high end journalism is leading to a downfall and my other opinion is journalism wont change.
My first theory is that I believe that high end journalism is leading to a downfall, because of the strong tool called the internet. The internet is known to be the informational delivery system of our future. It can be for our future reference, but has nothing on the first generation reporting idea's. The internet leads to many new publications where in this leads to ideas, and blogging. Where this becomes a repetition, commentary, and froth. Blogging is a state of news, but in reality it is really a readers opinion, and post of their own idea's. This is where bloggers then get false information from other bloggers, then before you know it, everyone gets the facts wrong.
The second theory that I believe is that high end journalism won't change as time goes on, meaning as in the future. This is because, what more can we change about journalism. Even in different countries everything is the same about the newspaper, and they provide their country with the facts they want. Every journalist travel to different places to get the facts right, and this requires time. News stories are all about the facts that are put into them, and full of peoples opinions; including witnesses. These are the keys facts for a new story that a journalist writes. They are the sources to their story, to make it more real and alive.
Either way, if journalism changes or not, it will still be in the same format. Full of facts and opinions from others. People believe that high end journalism is dying, and wont change unless there is a new economic model that is achieved. This wont be achieved on the web anyhow. David Simon believed that modern newspaper writing is the hardest job, and the most gratifying. This is because when you gather the information, it must all be full of truth, if otherwise you will provide the world with false facts. But the whole point of being a journalist is to provide your people with true facts about our problems, and about the world.
My first theory is that I believe that high end journalism is leading to a downfall, because of the strong tool called the internet. The internet is known to be the informational delivery system of our future. It can be for our future reference, but has nothing on the first generation reporting idea's. The internet leads to many new publications where in this leads to ideas, and blogging. Where this becomes a repetition, commentary, and froth. Blogging is a state of news, but in reality it is really a readers opinion, and post of their own idea's. This is where bloggers then get false information from other bloggers, then before you know it, everyone gets the facts wrong.
The second theory that I believe is that high end journalism won't change as time goes on, meaning as in the future. This is because, what more can we change about journalism. Even in different countries everything is the same about the newspaper, and they provide their country with the facts they want. Every journalist travel to different places to get the facts right, and this requires time. News stories are all about the facts that are put into them, and full of peoples opinions; including witnesses. These are the keys facts for a new story that a journalist writes. They are the sources to their story, to make it more real and alive.
Either way, if journalism changes or not, it will still be in the same format. Full of facts and opinions from others. People believe that high end journalism is dying, and wont change unless there is a new economic model that is achieved. This wont be achieved on the web anyhow. David Simon believed that modern newspaper writing is the hardest job, and the most gratifying. This is because when you gather the information, it must all be full of truth, if otherwise you will provide the world with false facts. But the whole point of being a journalist is to provide your people with true facts about our problems, and about the world.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Segements of The Daily Show and Fox News
After viewing both, The Daily Show and Fox News, I have noticed they are so much alike, but very different. I choose to watch the segments that were related to Meghan McCain. These two shorts shows were about Meghan McCain's new book that was just published; "Dirty Sexy Politics." Both, Fox News and The Daily Show advertised the new book, and talked about the different strategies that Meghan used in them. Fox News was more informative, and The Daily Show just joked around about the book.
I noticed that both of these show's gave out a lot of information regarding Meghan McCain's new book. Everything that was stated and remarked were true statements, and nothing false. Both of the head people of the show basically tried to help Meghan sell the book by advertising it on their show, and talk about what her beliefs are on the campaign and new book.
Watching The Daily Show, I noticed that the show was full of laughter. It made everything so much more interesting about news, and you wanted to hear more if it. As Jon Stewart and Meghan McCain chatted about her new book, Jon made some funny remarks about her book cover. Jon made Meghan laugh, smile, act silly, and just be herself. He wasn't mocking Meghan, he was just joking around. He had the crowd in the background, he had constant laughter throughout the show, and even provided the audience with political facts in between. There was just so much more going on. The viewers were gaining interest and learning something at the same time. I believe because of the way he runs the show with the laughter and smiles, that is how he wins over all the other news channels.
On the other hand, The Fox News was more of an informative show and trying to get straight to the point. They straight up stated facts one after another, and talked more then Meghan actually did. The show host talked so much Meghan barely got some words out of her mouth, and had a chance to even smile or laugh. There was obviously no crowd, music, or any excitement going on; unlike the daily show. Fox News was more calming and talking straight politics. They showed the viewers Meghan's new book on what it looked like, and what it was about. There was very little laughter and smiles. Where in The Daily Show just made jokes, but wasn't really telling is the core elements.
I have definitely formed opinions on both of the shows after just watching short little segments. I would prefer watching The Daily Show over Fox News, only because I'm a huge fan of comedy. So if I can watch a show that's funny and get some educational information out of it, then why not? This is why I believe The Daily Show is more well known, and more watched.
I noticed that both of these show's gave out a lot of information regarding Meghan McCain's new book. Everything that was stated and remarked were true statements, and nothing false. Both of the head people of the show basically tried to help Meghan sell the book by advertising it on their show, and talk about what her beliefs are on the campaign and new book.
Watching The Daily Show, I noticed that the show was full of laughter. It made everything so much more interesting about news, and you wanted to hear more if it. As Jon Stewart and Meghan McCain chatted about her new book, Jon made some funny remarks about her book cover. Jon made Meghan laugh, smile, act silly, and just be herself. He wasn't mocking Meghan, he was just joking around. He had the crowd in the background, he had constant laughter throughout the show, and even provided the audience with political facts in between. There was just so much more going on. The viewers were gaining interest and learning something at the same time. I believe because of the way he runs the show with the laughter and smiles, that is how he wins over all the other news channels.
On the other hand, The Fox News was more of an informative show and trying to get straight to the point. They straight up stated facts one after another, and talked more then Meghan actually did. The show host talked so much Meghan barely got some words out of her mouth, and had a chance to even smile or laugh. There was obviously no crowd, music, or any excitement going on; unlike the daily show. Fox News was more calming and talking straight politics. They showed the viewers Meghan's new book on what it looked like, and what it was about. There was very little laughter and smiles. Where in The Daily Show just made jokes, but wasn't really telling is the core elements.
I have definitely formed opinions on both of the shows after just watching short little segments. I would prefer watching The Daily Show over Fox News, only because I'm a huge fan of comedy. So if I can watch a show that's funny and get some educational information out of it, then why not? This is why I believe The Daily Show is more well known, and more watched.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Does Fake News Mislead the Public?
After reading issue nine, "Does Fake News Mislead the Public," I have come to an agreement. I absolutely believe that Fake News misleads the public in many ways. Not just the media, but also in print sources too. Reading this has made me come to realize that late night shows puts out false information for it's viewers, especially for a majority of people under the age of 30. A prime example can be The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. His shows are to be known for the humor part in the political remarks, rather then being filled with substances.
The late night show that Jon Stewart puts on, The Daily Show, is a widely known watched show all over the United States. Jon Stewart's shows are full of not just comedy, but comedy on politics. It is to be known that 21% of people under the age of thirty rely on this show for gaining and receiving facts on politics and campaigns. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may be full of humor, and this is what can lead to false information and beliefs. The show may not be putting out false facts, but it is argued that uneducated people may believe in the facts Jon says and not get the "joke," that Jon Stewart was putting out. This leads to a kind of imagination. Which then leads them to the wrong understanding. This can affect a majority of people on their knowledge, beliefs and behaviors; which then can really screw up the campaign.
People are still debating whether The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is an informative late night show, or just a comedy show that is a joke. But the facts clearly show that people do take the show seriously, which rely and gain information from it about our campaign. People who rely on the network evening show for campaign information have almost the same percentage as those who watch The Daily Show. The network evening news have 23% of people who rely on it; which are the ages thirty and under. I believe that people can argue all they want, but when the result's come in, it tells all. The network news only has 2% more people that watch their stations, then the late night (comedy) shows.
Either way I believe that both the news and the late night shows are both filled with truthful and valuable information. Americans are going to need to learn something about who they vote for; therefore they need some form of direction. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may mislead people in the wrong direction with the jokes, but what can you do? It's a show, anyone is going to believe what they hear on television, true or false. To me the news is dull and boring, so when you find something with a little comedy in it, then why not try it out? This makes the televisions network is the primary source of news and information for the presidential elections, so this makes the printed sources secondary. But yes, the answer is yes, fake news does mislead the public.
The late night show that Jon Stewart puts on, The Daily Show, is a widely known watched show all over the United States. Jon Stewart's shows are full of not just comedy, but comedy on politics. It is to be known that 21% of people under the age of thirty rely on this show for gaining and receiving facts on politics and campaigns. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may be full of humor, and this is what can lead to false information and beliefs. The show may not be putting out false facts, but it is argued that uneducated people may believe in the facts Jon says and not get the "joke," that Jon Stewart was putting out. This leads to a kind of imagination. Which then leads them to the wrong understanding. This can affect a majority of people on their knowledge, beliefs and behaviors; which then can really screw up the campaign.
People are still debating whether The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is an informative late night show, or just a comedy show that is a joke. But the facts clearly show that people do take the show seriously, which rely and gain information from it about our campaign. People who rely on the network evening show for campaign information have almost the same percentage as those who watch The Daily Show. The network evening news have 23% of people who rely on it; which are the ages thirty and under. I believe that people can argue all they want, but when the result's come in, it tells all. The network news only has 2% more people that watch their stations, then the late night (comedy) shows.
Either way I believe that both the news and the late night shows are both filled with truthful and valuable information. Americans are going to need to learn something about who they vote for; therefore they need some form of direction. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may mislead people in the wrong direction with the jokes, but what can you do? It's a show, anyone is going to believe what they hear on television, true or false. To me the news is dull and boring, so when you find something with a little comedy in it, then why not try it out? This makes the televisions network is the primary source of news and information for the presidential elections, so this makes the printed sources secondary. But yes, the answer is yes, fake news does mislead the public.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Similarities between Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews view on Obama
After watching two short shows on Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews, I now see where their minds are at. They both basically believe that everything Obama says is a lie or a fib. Both of their shows are straight up making fun of Obama's speeches, and saying he doesn't really know what is really going on out in the world. Obama says in his speeches that everyone has the right to do what they want. But in reality, do they? Obama, as he give's his speech that anyone can practice their own religion, but then how come he's against so many countries? Obama is basically trying to build his reducibility with the public and wants to spread the word that he is a proud American.
I believe that Obama does care about his people, but he can't fully focus on his people. This is because he has so much other stuff going on in the office, and can't put full attention on us. So when he gives his speeches to his American's, he tries to make himself look like he really does care. He is proud that his people practice their own religion, he is proud that his American's teach their children "the right way." But my question is, what is the right way in his opinion? Obama also explains that a country that has responsibility, deserves hard work. Don't we all work hard,, and all want to deserve the same? So what ever you put into your work, you will get out of it.
Obama clearly states that everyone should have to right to believe and practice their own religion. But if this is so, then why cant everyone have to right to what ever they want? For example, the gay people. I know it is against some of the religion rights, but America is suppose to be all about freedom. This country is all about freedom and opportunity says the President. Either way, I believe Obama has a lot of responsibilities on his country, and he tries to make the most of it that he can.
Either way, there will always be someone who makes fun of another. Everyone will form opinions on another. And that's where Glenn beck and Chris Matthew's steps in. They form their own beliefs and make people believe that their view is right, and that is what forms our country. No one really thinks on their own. Obama tries to make himself look all goody good, and wants to make a connection with a certain group of Americans. I'm sure he has made a ton of connections, and in reality no one is going to stop him. Obama is the President, and Beck and Matthews are just news men who like to spread words.
I believe that Obama does care about his people, but he can't fully focus on his people. This is because he has so much other stuff going on in the office, and can't put full attention on us. So when he gives his speeches to his American's, he tries to make himself look like he really does care. He is proud that his people practice their own religion, he is proud that his American's teach their children "the right way." But my question is, what is the right way in his opinion? Obama also explains that a country that has responsibility, deserves hard work. Don't we all work hard,, and all want to deserve the same? So what ever you put into your work, you will get out of it.
Obama clearly states that everyone should have to right to believe and practice their own religion. But if this is so, then why cant everyone have to right to what ever they want? For example, the gay people. I know it is against some of the religion rights, but America is suppose to be all about freedom. This country is all about freedom and opportunity says the President. Either way, I believe Obama has a lot of responsibilities on his country, and he tries to make the most of it that he can.
Either way, there will always be someone who makes fun of another. Everyone will form opinions on another. And that's where Glenn beck and Chris Matthew's steps in. They form their own beliefs and make people believe that their view is right, and that is what forms our country. No one really thinks on their own. Obama tries to make himself look all goody good, and wants to make a connection with a certain group of Americans. I'm sure he has made a ton of connections, and in reality no one is going to stop him. Obama is the President, and Beck and Matthews are just news men who like to spread words.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Are American Value's Shaped by the Mass Media?
After reading Issue One, Are American Value's Shaped by the Media Mass, I have picked a side. I am strongly for yes; the media has definitely affected Americans. The media has affected Americans in so many ways; I don't know where to start. Once the media manipulates us, our social arrangement's are unconsidered. People today don't want to face the truth in life, so we look ahead into reality. These are the transmissions that send signals and messages across to us.
The media becomes so persuasive, it makes is hard for Americans to believe that they don't have important affect on us. But many people don't want to admit the truth that the media has an observable impact on their everyday lives, and even others around them. Therefore I believe the media has influenced people to buy products, such as clothes, toys, furniture, cars, and etc. When the product is displayed, it's put out as of a product that you have to have. They display it as the best product you can buy, and that it is better then it looks. They will have people smiling in the commercials having the greatest time with the product , and that you will be happy forever with it. But in reality, the media is shaping the attitudes of individuals in the society. It is making someone form an opinion and illusion of what they want, in order to win them over.
Herbert Schiller outlines five myths that forms and structures the manipulation of media on the Americans. These five myths maintain social powers over individuals, and repeat the same thing over and over untill they agree with them. Even though the technology is increasing over the years, Schiller argues that the advertisments ideological core of media still remains the same. I know that the media is so persuasive; it is affecting millions of people in a negative cause. No on can think on their own anymore. It is as if we are being trained as robots, and doing what they tell us to do.
On the other hand, I dont entirely agree with James Cary's ideas. He stresses the view of communications as a process of negotiation on images and issues. He argues that people just commit themselves and time to the mdeia, which is how they get attached. They want to make themselves think they are getting taken over. But in reality, they are torturing themselves. The transmission model of communications has focused our attention on the issues of power, and control. He thinks that people are being affected by others who are affected by the media. Where I don't think that is entirely true. Everyone at least does one of the following; watches TV, reads the newspaper, reads magazines, or listens to the radio. They have to form opinions or hear what they media has to say. We have something to value.
Either way, television is persuasive to Americans, and always will be. Either it is the cultral approach to communication or the mind managers, the media is still geting their products or items out there on advetisement, and they are selling worldwide. Even if the commercial is persuasive or not, they are being successful. This is changing the nature of public discourse. All this persuasion is negatively affecting Americans, because they can't have a mind of their own. We can't believe what is right and wrong because others are being affected too. If we think on our own, then other people who are being affected will think we are crazy for our own thoughts. It is a cycle, everyone is manipulation each other.
The media becomes so persuasive, it makes is hard for Americans to believe that they don't have important affect on us. But many people don't want to admit the truth that the media has an observable impact on their everyday lives, and even others around them. Therefore I believe the media has influenced people to buy products, such as clothes, toys, furniture, cars, and etc. When the product is displayed, it's put out as of a product that you have to have. They display it as the best product you can buy, and that it is better then it looks. They will have people smiling in the commercials having the greatest time with the product , and that you will be happy forever with it. But in reality, the media is shaping the attitudes of individuals in the society. It is making someone form an opinion and illusion of what they want, in order to win them over.
Herbert Schiller outlines five myths that forms and structures the manipulation of media on the Americans. These five myths maintain social powers over individuals, and repeat the same thing over and over untill they agree with them. Even though the technology is increasing over the years, Schiller argues that the advertisments ideological core of media still remains the same. I know that the media is so persuasive; it is affecting millions of people in a negative cause. No on can think on their own anymore. It is as if we are being trained as robots, and doing what they tell us to do.
On the other hand, I dont entirely agree with James Cary's ideas. He stresses the view of communications as a process of negotiation on images and issues. He argues that people just commit themselves and time to the mdeia, which is how they get attached. They want to make themselves think they are getting taken over. But in reality, they are torturing themselves. The transmission model of communications has focused our attention on the issues of power, and control. He thinks that people are being affected by others who are affected by the media. Where I don't think that is entirely true. Everyone at least does one of the following; watches TV, reads the newspaper, reads magazines, or listens to the radio. They have to form opinions or hear what they media has to say. We have something to value.
Either way, television is persuasive to Americans, and always will be. Either it is the cultral approach to communication or the mind managers, the media is still geting their products or items out there on advetisement, and they are selling worldwide. Even if the commercial is persuasive or not, they are being successful. This is changing the nature of public discourse. All this persuasion is negatively affecting Americans, because they can't have a mind of their own. We can't believe what is right and wrong because others are being affected too. If we think on our own, then other people who are being affected will think we are crazy for our own thoughts. It is a cycle, everyone is manipulation each other.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)