Posts

Module 5 Reflection

/in /by

I found this week’s readings to be just as important and interesting as the last four weeks. Influence, democracy and agency were the central themes this week and I could see them in all of the readings. I think most of us agree that there is bias in broadcasting stations. According to Benjamin Radford, news feeds into fears and creates many myths that we then shape our society with (2003, p. 65). I really like when he discusses the idea that most of us think we know and understand a story when we hear it on the news, but it’s just not possible for that to happen when we see just 1 to 2 minute clips  (p. 66). News only gives us part of the story and doesn’t go too deep into it. One way that news stations become biased is that reporters tend to interview people with same beliefs and ideas as themselves (p. 78). I found that interesting because I don’t think many of us, myself included, think about news reporters that way. We think they are finding information from both sides of the story, but this may not be true. There are ways we can detect bias in news reporting. According the article, “How to Detect Bias in News Media”, we can ask ourselves who the sources are, if their is diversity, whose point of view is it from, are there double standards, if their are stereotypes, if their is loaded language and is their a lack of context just to name a few (FAIR, n.d.). Learning to ask these types of questions is a great media literacy skill.

We see bias a lot in news when it come to politics. In the article, “Who Gets to Speak on Cable News?”, we see that different news stations fall onto different sides of the political spectrum. Fox News Channel features more republicans than democrats as well as the O’Reilly Factor and Hannity (Hart, 2014). MSNBC and Rachel Maddow had more democratic guests than republican guests (Hart, 2014). Different news shows also feature different amounts of diverse groups, some feature more than others. Republicans, or Conservatives, believe in personal responsibility and limited government while Democrats, or Liberals, believe in strong government and equality for everyone (Student News Daily, 2010). When watching news, if you see more of these ideas than others, it may give you a good idea as to what side they fall under. As stated previously, diversity and political parties are thinks we can look our for when determining if a news station is biased. We cannot really control what the media says because of our first amendment, freedom of speech and press. According to Karen Sternheimer from the slides, what we see in the news is only a small portion of what we need to know is going on in our government (2003, p.219). Media has a lot of power and can influence the way we think and feel so it is important to keep an eye our for biased messages.

The last readings that I read were chapters 10 and 11 from out textbook. Chapter 10, on consumption and materialism was really interesting to me as a college student. Growing up watching shows like My Super Sweet 16 and Cribs made me want so many things that I couldn’t have. I dreamed of having a huge party and a super cool house, but that just wasn’t reality for me. According to Sternheimer, this isn’t just children and young adults who want the same (2013, p. 245). Adults want things they can’t afford just like children and teens. I thought it was really interesting when she mentioned that when teens were interviewed, they said they would be happier if they had more money so they could buy things for themselves (246). That is so sad to me. What I got out of the next chapter, chapter 11, is that media and pop culture do not cause all of the problems children, teens, and young adults face today. Media is easy to blame for these things but there are other causes. Media happens to represent these issues such as bullying, teen pregnancy and eating disorders. Basically what I got out of it is that media is not to blame for everything even though its easy and we may want to.

Module 5 Reflections

/in /by

This weeks readings all mostly encompassed the same themes. Representation, and media. I’ve been reading a lot about how media affects politics, especially in my political science class last semester, but it’s interesting to read and learn about it in a more media literate sense.

I think it’s absolutely astonishing the way that press has evolved from a source of importance, to a source of sensationalism. I also think that’s its so sad that “trending” topics are what get prime time spots over equal representation in current events. As the reading The rise and fall of professional Journalism, I think it was interesting what the last slide said: “The problems with our journalism are not because the people who run our newsrooms and media corporations are bad people (McChesney, 2002).” I think a lot of people tend to put a lot of their discontent about media on specific TV personalities, and I think it’s very unfair. It’s interesting, but unfair. I also never thought about democracy and news in the way we did here. I never thought about democracy being taken away by the congregation and merging of major news corporations (Tollefson, n.d.) and the lack of new information because each company is reusing content.

The lack of representation has been an issue since we became a country. As a country, we’re still new. We’re still developing, and new social issues are arising every day as we work out kinks that haven’t been resolved yet, due to differences in views in how the country should be run (Student News Daily, 2010). The reading and video about representation in the news media (Hart, 2014 & Global Media Marketing Project, 2015) was quite astonishing. It’s just raw data, but the inferences that can be made from these sources is still a good way to open our eyes about this issue of under-representation.

Chapter 10 and 11 of our textbook were also very interesting. I think it’s interesting that a lot of parents blame advertisers/ments for their lack of willpower and discipline (read: teaching) their kids to learn about consumerism and excessive wants. This is my personal opinion of course, and everyone is free to go against my own opinion to tell me why I should consider another side. Even back in the last module, where we read about advertisements and obesity (Sternheimer, 2013). I always think to myself, that it’s crazy how parents can blame advertisements when kids aren’t the ones who have the money or the means to buy these things that are advertised to children. The fact that parents would rather “shut their kids up” by giving them things shows an issue that wouldn’t be resolved by getting rid or regulating advertisements.

Chapter 11 of our textbook really zones in on the issues of why we have problems with media in the first place. It all centers in on equality– or inequality, rather; and the absence of representation to make these issues known, and into popular culture. I have to completely agree with the text here, that the lack of representation in our media, and thus our popular culture, all try to paint a much different, more positive one (Sternheimer, 2013). One that creates illusions for our youth, who are usually the first to learn these messages. With the introduction of media literacy, the negative depictions and messages in our media would be less effective towards our youth, who as mentioned before, pick up these messages usually first.

MODULE 5, YAYY!!

/in /by

This module focused a lot on news media, and what the news may or may not provide to us. In the slides that professor Tollefson, one of the quotes listed was “not everything you see on the news is newsworthy, and not everything newsworthy is on the news” (Radford, 2003, p.67). A lot of the things that we think should be on the news aren’t being put on the news, and a lot of the things that are on the news aren’t, like Radford, “newsworthy”. We tend to focus more on what the audience wants to hear then on what we need to hear.

A lot of the news channels that we watch are limited to the kind of people who are telling us the news, and who is watching the news. Like we did on our assignment on watching news and defining what race was in the news, the audience, and so on and so forth, on “Who gets to Speak on cable news?”, they as well conducted a study that found that CNN news found that eighty four percent of guest were white, and that the most and least diverse shows in terms of ethnicity were both on MSNBC. Which was a lot of the information that I found when I was going through my news channels, the majority of them were white, I saw very few Latinos, and mostly men were the main ones, but I did find that there was more women who were telling the weather, men still outnumbering though. There is definitely a lack of diversity in the media.

In The news Bias, part 2 I found something that I always questioned. Which was when news programs use things such as “fear, fear of harm” they say things such as Violence in the schools: Is your child safe? A special report every parent must see. Tonight at eleven”. What I never knew was that the media actually profits from this because it gets people to tune into their channels to give them the views that they needs, especially because chances are that the audience doesn’t want to tune in that late, especially to watch the news.

Module 5 Readings

/in /by

I started off with the McChesney “The Rise and Fall of Professional Journalism” which was fascinating. Seeing the evolution of media from the 18th century to 20th century was really interesting and showed how much media has affected history. I pulled the quote from the 18th century that states, “It was understood that if the government could outlaw or circumscribe newspapers, it could effectively eliminate the ability of opposition parties or movements to mobilize popular support. It would kill democracy.” I thought this quote was so powerful; the last line was extremely impactful because of its claim. The article then goes on to discuss the 3 biases of professional journalism. Again, these ideas were really interesting because of the outrageous claims made. For example, “This meant that crucial social issues like racism or environmental degradation fell through the cracks of journalism unless there was some event, like a demonstration or the release of an official report, to justify coverage.” This shows media only wants to cover certain things and uncover others. I found the graphics to be helpful in visualizing what the article was saying. I also found it appalling when it talked about choosing the “right American” in corporate news media because it shocked me to hear there was even a phrase called “right Americans”.

I then read “Democracy and the News” which as well was fascinating and full of quotes I had never heard of before. I chose a quote that stood out to me the most and it reads, “Not everything you see on the news is newsworthy, and not everything newsworthy is on the news” (Radford, 2003, p. 67). I chose it because I thought it was completely relevant to present media and their choices they make on choosing what to broadcast or advertise. Something newsworthy is never shown but I found in the top 10 new stories that Pepsi now puts aspartame in their diet soda. This quote just seemed relevant to what we have been talking about, especially in bringing light to what media decides not to talk about.

The next thing I read was “Who Gets To Speak on Cable News” which shows outrageously low numbers of people of color and women. I didn’t know exact statistics but I knew that races other than white and women were media minorities. The fact that I knew this (prior to this course) yet really thought nothing of it shows how non-media literate I was. Now I am irritated when I turn the news on and see that women and most races are hardly even shown in media, whether it’s the news, television, movies or advertisements. Much like other races, when women are portrayed on these media channels, it’s often seen through a negative lens. I chose to ad this graph as a visual to really comprehend how little people of color and women (of color) are seen in media.

Layout 1

After getting annoyed from reading “Who Gets to Speak on Cable TV” I read “The News Bias” which was really dense but had some really interesting information in it. Page 78 of this article states, “Reporters in the media tend to highlight those interview subjects who

subscribe to their point of view” (78). I thought this was so interesting because now that I have read this, I can’t imagine how many interviews (etc) I have seen and or read about that are completely manipulated by media to make their interview, or ad, seem better. T

A few paragraphs later Giffel states that children are being stripped of their innocence due to acts of terrorism or anthrax scares but Radford argues this is not true. He states that children are more likely to get in a car accident than be faced with terrorism attacks. I agree with Radford because although we live in such a violent world, I do not believe this takes away a child’s chance of living a good life and I don’t think children are losing their innocence in these violent crime because I do not feel as though they are being targeted. I remember I was in second grade when 911 occurred. I didn’t really understand what was happening but by my parents’ reaction, I could tell it wasn’t good. After hearing about it at school and from my family, days later I completely forgot about it and lived my 7 year old life the same as I did before. Obviously as I got older I was appalled at 911 and other tragedies that occurred in our country but it did not strip away my innocence or put my life in any danger as a child. However, I do agree with Giffel in some ways because if I knew someone in 911 for example, I do feel as though I could easily strip me of my innocence or change my life forever. To generalize saying that these events ruin every child’s life or affects their innocence isn’t true but there are children who are effected by these events daily. Although I only spoke about few topics that were mentioned in this article, overall it was really interesting and I enjoyed this read.

I moved onto “Liberals vs. Conservatives” which was really interesting but I can honestly say I did not agree with a lot of it. Sometimes I lean more toward conservative ideals and other times I lean more toward liberal ideals so to generalize what every liberal or conservative thinks, does not seem accurate to me. For example, something controversial like abortion may vary on every person. Generalizing every liberal saying women should be able to abort her child may not be completely true. Although this article has good intentions, it wasn’t for me. I do not label myself anything when it comes to politics and may view one thing as a liberal and another as a conservative.

After I read “How To Detect Bias..” I was able to take information from McChesney and relate it to this article. I had never really thought to look at the sources of who is giving in formation and how the spokesperson may make bias claims which can change people’s views in they are unaware of the spokesperson’s beliefs. I found the quote, “Demand that the media you consume reflect the diversity of the public they serve. Call or write media outlets every time you see an all-male or all-white panel of experts discussing issues that affect women and people of color” to be so interesting. How can a white male talk about a Latino woman and have an accurate perspective on her life or her views? This shows truly how important diversity is in media. For example, how can news anchors talk about struggles of someone of a different race or gender, or both?

Although I enjoyed reading “How To Detect Bias..” it bothered me a little as well. After watching “Who Makes News” I got a little happier that the narrator brings light to how important it is to show women in positive light on media. The GMMP has a ton of volunteers who participate in the research which I thought was super cool! This video reminded me of the smurfette principal and how NOT okay it is to portray women the way they are currently being portrayed in media. The GMMP studies this over 108 countries, which shows how universal this conflict is. The GMMP aims for these resolutions: “To map the representation and portrayal of women in the world’s news media, To develop a grassroots research instrument, To build solidarity among gender and communication groups worldwide, To create media awareness, and To develop media monitoring skills on an international level.” If these actions are taken, then I believe women truly would be portrayed better than they are now.

I always read Sternheimer’s chapter last so I can relate her ideas with the prior articles. One of the first sections that caught my eye was when she writes about children. Sternheimer writes, “The fear that children are lured into our hyper consumerist society too soon draws on romantic notions of childhood innocence, in which children are somehow untainted by consumer culture until advertisers enter their allegedly pure space. In reality, consumption often precedes birth” (Sternheimer 249). I though this was so interesting because already newborn babies are being target for baby products, yet have no idea that they are. This reminds me of people who are not media literate and how media targets them, yet they are completely unaware of it. She then talks about how people play the blame game, which is very true! Although we like to blame media, it really may not be the answer. She mentions a 2006 poll where parents thought media was targeting children too much. She mentions an advocacy group called Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children. She states, “This group describes advertising as “$12.8 billion-a-year industry that targets society’s most vulnerable minds and deliberately excludes parents” (Sternheimer 255). I though calling children “society’s most vulnerable minds” was wrong and I feel as though adults are often just as vulnerable when it comes to being targeted. Sternheimer argues rather than blaming the advertisement, help your child become more media literate so perhaps media won’t as easily persuade them. Later in chapter 20, she mentions that children can start to critically think about media in schooling and I completely agree. After taking this course, I truly realized how important it is to become literate, not only for adults, but children as well.

Lastly, I read chapter 11 “Beyond Popular Culture” which was fascinating as always. In this chapter, I finally realized what Sternheimer meant when she says, “Why media is not the answer”. On page 273, Sternheimer states, “…popular culture is not the central cause of changes in childhood, bullying, suicide, educational failures, violence, sexual behavior, teen pregnancy, single parenthood, eating problems, substance abuse. Or materialism. It is not the main reason inequality, racism, sexism and homophobia persist” (Sternheimer 273). All of these topics are not direct results of media, leading me to believe Sternheimer is saying media is not the answer to these issues society faces. However, I do not feel as though her arguments are relating as much to readings in this module. I think these two chapters are relating to all of the articles and videos we have been discussing for these past 5 weeks. Media may not be direct results of all of these societal issues, but of course media has an impact on these issues. In the middle of chapter 11, Sternheimer mentions poverty again and shows a visual of a graph that shows how many children under the age of 18 are under the poverty line. I think she mentioned poverty again in this chapter to show truly how important it is to get more impoverished families stories out. Rather than talking about chemicals in Pepsi in top news, we can solutions to making sure no child has to live under poverty. But as Sternheimer and other authors had mentioned about issues like poverty an racism, we tend to not want to hear about their situations. We like to pretend we don’t hear when we know we do and we like to pretend there is nothing we can do when we know there is a lot we can do. Media doesn’t like to mention racism and poverty because no one wants to hear about it and all media needs is our attention. If they talk about things we don’t want to hear about, they will lose its views attention.

Overall, I really enjoyed all of the readings in this module but found it a little hard to connect these particular works with these 2 chapters. They all connected if we look at the course as a whole and to me that was really interesting to see how everything connected so well.

 

Module 5 Reflection

/in /by

The articles and video revolved around how there is bias in our news and world today. The book The news bias: Distorting reality and feeding fears states, “confusion between seeing and knowing, and seeing and understanding, is used by television to manipulate people” (Radford, 2003, p. 66). They use fear and headlines to capture the peoples attention. This book reminded me again how important it is to become media literate. Like the other articles we read in this module it will help us know the difference between truth and false as well as opening our eyes and seeing how biased our media representation is. The television distorts our reality. Someone watching the news is most likely to believe everything they hear and see because it is being reported but according the Radford, “ Television, by its very nature, distorts the reality it claims to reflect and report on. Events are compressed, highlighted, sped up. Thus a person who occasionally watches sports highlights on TV will likely see more home runs and touchdowns than a person who attends local games regularly; television viewers are likely to see more murders than a police detective, more serious car crashes than a tow truck driver, and more plane crashes than a crash investigator” (Radford, 2003, p. 69). I thought this was perfectly said and a great comparison to what the news shows us and how reality is. I don’t know how many times I’ve see re-runs of the same thing over and over again when something big occurs in our news. They take it and shows us different parts of it but its the same thing and made to be very dramatic.

Becoming media literate is import especially for detecting bias in the media. The How to Detect Bias in the Media from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting was a good article to help you ask questions that will ultimately lead you to realizing the sources, lack of diversity, points of view, double standards, stereotypes, assumption, language, and context. Knowing all this is important to make sure all voices are represented. “It is essential that news media, along with other institutions, are challenged to be fair and accurate. The first step in challenging biased news coverage is documenting bias” (FAIR). If we do not challenge what is wrong then nothing good will ever come out of it. Another article which shows the bias in our news today was Who Gets to Speak on Cable News? by Peter Hart. They did their own research that showed bias in our news today. The article stated, “ Eighty-four percent of guests were white (848). The most and least diverse shows in terms of ethnicity were both on MSNBC: People of color were 27 percent of guests on All In and only 6 percent on Maddow. Just three of Maddow’s guests were people of color; none of these were women” (Hart, 2014). Not only are the people who show up as guests on world and local news made up of the white gender but women again are very low.

The video called Who makes the News GMMP was another eye opener. Starting off with the facts that 51% of females make up our population, but only 24% of the people in the news are female is shocking. You would think by now in our society we would have at least half female in the news since female make up half the population. Local news comes with a lot of power because according to GMMP, the news has the power to influence people and also have the power to help change local and foreign agendas. This video reminds me of the activities we have done where first we had to tally up how many times we saw a different ethnicity or gender on the television screen. The other activity in this module also showed how frequent the newscast people were mostly white male speaking and the topics did not relate to a wide range of people. The video made a good point saying, “ the world reported in the new is mostly male. Which means a societal underpinnings of gender inequality and discrimination against women are reinforced through the media” (GMMP, 2013, video). I could not agree more and this is where GMMP comes in. GMMP is Global Media Monitoring Project, who try to tackle problems like this by contributing their time to making a difference, with people who think that change for women needs to happen too. It was interesting to see depending on the topic then the gender would change. For example crime, economy, and politics would usually be presented by a male newscaster. Another important fact was that only 6% of the stories talked about gender inequality. This means the less talked about and less resources then the rest of the percentages are missed opportunities to help raise awareness to the public about these problems out there in our world. Not only are women lacking but the way the are misrepresented as well. Women are invisible and we need to have change. There are article and news stories that do highlight the greatness of women but we need more of it. 

Sternheimer had a different look on media and our problems in society. She does not blame our popular culture for our problems but it seemed as though one things leads to another. Teen pregnancy related back to poverty, and then teen pregnancy related back to higher divorce rates. All these different problems play off of each other like a domino effect that keeps going in a circle until we do something about it. According to the book it mentioned how poverty and inequality are connected but, it is easier to blame the media for the problems then taking responsibility for it. Even though we have many more problems to deal with we have seen progress and small changes. Sternheimer stated, “ As much as we might hope to believe that the civil rights movement and later electing a black president ended all traces of racial inequality, it was a beginning, but certainly not the end in the process of creating equality” Sternheimer, 2013, p. 281. There are small and big problems from schools, to poverty, to violence but one thing we really need to focus on is inequality with change will come equality and other problems will slowly diminish with it. All the other articles, books, and videos talked about how media is not good for representation and being bias, but Sternheimer does state that pop culture and media matters. Media analysis is a tool to help us expose these issues and problems we need to face. Instead of having the media direct us in the wrong direction it can direct us by capturing our attention to our societies problems instead, bringing awareness, and give us that wake up call we’ve been needing.   

Module 5 Reflection

/in /by

The question that stood out to me the most in Module 5 is “what gets our attention?” This module talked about consumerism, advertisements, and bias in the media. Personally, I believe these are all interrelated. This industry knows exactly what to do to grab our attention. Bias in the news is a major issue that media literate students are taught to be aware of. However, it is important as a society to understand that not everything the news and advertisements say are necessarily true. There is always more to the story. Radford and Brinkley (2003) explain, “Television news producers and directors do not help viewers decide what information is useful or helpful to the audience. Ultimately their job is to increase ratings…” (p. 68-70). Unfortunately, not everything in the news is credible or even newsworthy, the main thing that drives media is ratings, and as a society, we are responsible for increasing ratings. FAIR stated a few aspects of detecting media in the news. One aspect that is not only important in the news but for everything, is “who are the sources?” It is extremely important to question where the information came from. From politics to gossip magazines, knowing where the source came from will help you detect bias. Another aspect that stood out to me was making sure the headline actually matches the story. Before I read FAIR, I did not know the reporter of the article does not make the headline. The headline is used to get our attention, so we will read the article; another untrue aspect of media. News is one medium that is completely changed to fit the content in a short period of time (Radford, p. 68). It is acceptable to be skeptical of the information you receive.

Another aspect of attention is advertisements. For the past few weeks we have learned the ins and the outs of advertising. A part of the success of advertisements is consumerism. As consumers we are obsessed with making purchases, swiping are credit cards and waiting to buy the next big thing. At a young age we were taught by advertisements what is cool or not. Advertisers study their target markets. Children are the most influenced by advertising, even though adults can be persuaded. Advertisers know what will catch the eye. Sterneheimer says that advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry (2013, p. 258). They are willing to spend so much money on this type of market because their strategy actually works.

Overall, Module 5 taught me that it is OK to question the media and to understanding that not everything I hear or see is accurate. As I previously said, there is always more to the story.

We have reached the end! Module 5

/in /by

So I do not know about you guys, but I feel like I am walking away from this course with a plethora of knowledge compared to when I started with. This course may have been short, but I feel like the amount we learned is more than I have learned in a couple full semester courses.

In this module, I learned a lot about the news and also how consumption impacts us. I found the readings from the Karen Sterheimer’s text, Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture, very interesting this week. I have always blamed the media for influencing our spending habits. When in reality, we are to blame. We have made it to where money pretty much runs our society.  The reason why our children and the next generation, feel entitled to things or to spend money is because we let them. The children are not to blame, they are only following our lead. Yes children have as Karen Sterheimer says, “kidfluence: the power children have to influence their parents’ purchasing decisions”. (Sterheimer 2013 p.247) But, its the parents who allow the children to influence them.  They have a need to consume. Sometimes it could because they feel guilty they are not home or even guilty that their children don’t have what the other children have. When in reality, is it really that important to “Keep up with the Jones’”. Buying things even if they are not necessary, is a problem people have. But, Our economy depends on people spending in order to keep running. Sternheimer, K. says, “Approximately two- thirds of the economic growth in United States can be attributed to consumer purchases”. (2013 p. 248).  Everyone has a problem with overindulgence, despite what “class” they fall under.  We are a culture of consumption. Adults want to fit in just as much as children do, that leads to them spending money they may not have. It is easy to blame advertising for children wanting to have things, but really children are the hardest targets for advertisers to reach. I did not know this until I read it in the text. I always thought that children would be the easiest target. Some advertisers have mastered the trick though and understand children and what they want to see. One way that advertisers have influenced the youth to buy their products is by offering youth who may be “popular” to other children free products. I have seen a lot of this on youtube. I watch make up tutorials on there and follow girls who have a large following. I always wondered how they always have the newest make up products (because I struggle to buy the few products I use!). I have learned that they are offered free products if they use them in their tutorials! And of course they do! Who wouldn’t want free makeup? And they make them look AMAZING! They sell those products and make me want to go out and buy it for myself. Which is me failing into the consumption cycle just like the advertisers planned.

Just like the youth want free products, schools want funding too. It is becoming more common for schools to sell public space to advertisers. According to Sternheimer, K, “The sad fact is that advertisers often value children as consumers more than our society values them as students, and advertisers are fronting the money to prove it.”(2013, p. 263) The advertisers are jumping on that lack of funding problem in schools. Because society is failing to provide the resources schools need to help our students succeed, our students are now around advertisements more and more.  No wonder they are craving to consume and manipulating their parents to do so! People need to realize that it is better to live with less and to create more balance in their life. They need to add more yin to their yang. To create this balance, they have to be more conscious of their consumption.

Just like advertisers try to show us things we want to see in order to convince us to buy products. The news follows that trend. They show stories that will get them the most views. We depend on the news to get all of our information. We really miss out on a lot of information because the news media will show what is going to get them the most views. According to Radford (2003), “Typical local news stories one might encounter in an average week include house fires, car accidents, hit-and-runs, bank robberies, homicides, and the like. But very little of this is actually relevant to the vast majority of viewers.” He also says, “Television, by its very nature, distorts the reality it claims to reflect and report on. Events are compressed, highlighted, sped up”. This makes me feel that when I watch the news I really am missing a lot of the story. They do not give us all of the information, instead, a summarized version of it which could be majority false because it is only data- no information or wisdom. I really enjoyed the article, “How to Detect Bias in News Media”, because it really shows us ways to find out of if the information we are paying attention to is correct. I have noticed that many media sources lack diversity. As I read in this article, “In order to fairly represent different communities, news outlets should have members of those communities in decision making positions.” ( Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.  p.1) As McChesney (2002 ) says in his article “The Rise and Fall of Professional Journalism”, when journalism was on the rise, “People could trust what they read.”(2002, slide 6) That is not true anymore. The news only shows what is going to get them the ratings and views they want. “mainstream news and “business news” have effectively morphed over the past two decades, as the news is increasingly pitched to the richest one-half or one-third of the population” (McChesney, 2002, slide 13) The media gets to show what they want because it is their freedom of speech. Although we may not agree with some of it, that is what they are allowed to do.  The powerpoint, “Democracy & The News”, provided to us during this module shows us different peoples opinions about freedom of speech and how it has changed or what it means.

The article, “Who Gets to Speak on Cable News?”, also goes into detail about how news networks do not show diversity. Before this course, I never really payed attention to what is shown on the news, but I must say- my eyes have been opened! We did an activity in this module like the project they did in this article. We watched the news and made note as to who spoke on that story and who it was about. A majority of the people were caucasian and usually male. I noticed, just like mentioned in this article, that when I did see another race, it was usually the news anchor. Who was the same Asian female, shown on many stories. The article says, “Male guests widely out numbered women on every show, making up to 72 percent of the guest lists.” (Hart, 2014) I never really thought about women being a minority. I mean sure earlier in the module we learned about sexism, but I thought that women were shown equally. I know there was an issue with races not shown equally, but I never noticed it with gender. “Among guests with a partisan affiliation, Democrats outnumbered Republicans…”. (Hart, 2014) When I was doing my news critique, I too noticed this. I saw I believe one video and it was about Donald Trump. The reporters were all giving their opinion as to why he should not be president. It seemed very bias because the reporters were all supporting Democratic beliefs. I learned the differences between a lot of Liberal and Conservative beliefs from the article provided by the editors of StudentNewsDaily (2010). This article was interesting. I knew the difference between their beliefs, but this article went into a lot of detail which helped clear up any confusion I had about what the different parties supported. I lean more towards the right side, but on some issues I do have a liberal opinion. How about you guys? Did you go through the article and mark where you stood on each issue? I thought it was really interesting.

I thought that the final chapter we read in the textbook was a good wrap up to the whole course. I have learned that media is not to blame for many of the issues going on in our society. From violence, bullying, suicide, sexual behavior, teen pregnancy, eating disorders, substance abuse, homophobia, racism, sexism, or materialism occur. There is much more underlying issues that people choose not to pay attention to. This course really helped me recognize that. Poverty is a big thing to blame for these problems happening. Children who live in poverty have less access to food and health insurance, this causes issues to their health. Sure the government has programs to help people in poverty, but they are things like the GI Bill which “enabled many WHITE families to buy homes with little or no money down and in some cases pay less to move into a newly constructed home than to remain in urban homes”. (Sternheimer 2013, pg. 277) This provided a way for white people to move away leaving other races to live in the communities that pretty much died because there was no money being invested. This created areas of poverty. Living in poverty, can cause stress in homes which can cause violence or substance abuse by the parents. Also, children could feel abandoned because their parents are not home because they are out working. This lack of parental guidance, can cause children to go out and make another family like a gang. Teens growing up poor, feel like they have less to lose. They could fall into substance abuse or be involved more with violence, which could lead to them going to jail.Or even for  teenage girl become pregnant, she may think she has no future, so why not? Teens living in poverty have less access to sex education or healthcare access. This teen pregnancy could lead to teen marriage, which could lead to divorce. It is an on going cycle, which is becoming harder and harder to break.  It is very common for everyone to blame the poor people for having to live like this. I am guilty of that. I always say, they can go out and get a job and make a difference in their own life. I have always drove past homeless people on the side of the street because I just assume they will spend the money on drugs or something. I have learned not to categorize all people living in poverty. Everyone has a different story. My eyes have really been open though to see that sometimes, there is nothing they can do. Most often, parents are working and still can’t manage to make enough to support their family. My heart goes out to these children. I know that after this course, I am going to do what I can to help volunteer or donate items to these children. I have lived a very privileged life.  All it takes is one thing to make a difference in their life.

 

 

Module 5

/in /by

I have often heard individuals argue over the question, is there really such a thing as free press? Are we really capable of sharing unbiased, politically neutral opinions or are they just that, simply opinions?  McChesney (2002) answers a few of these questions by exploring the background and role of professional journalism in their academic slides titled: Into the Buzz Saw: Leading journalists expose the myth of free press.  These slides take a well-rounded approach to exploring this subject leading with a brief history of journalism and the term free press. I was drawn to the 18th century approach of political neutrality in journalism and surprised to read that they assumed that “if the government could outlaw or circumscribe newspapers, it effectively eliminate the ability of opposition parties or movements to mobilize popular support.” (McChesney, 2002, pg. 3). I am curious do you think that this was an ethical approach? I would argue that no, it is not; I think that this goes against everything that we hold dear as Americans. That is not free speech.

 Additionally, this article brought to light the three biases of professional journalism. These are: to remove the controversy connected with the selection of stories, there had to be a news hook or news peg to justify a news story, smuggles in values conducive to the commercial aims of the owners and advertisers as well as political aims of the owning class. (McChesney, 2002, pg. 7-9). This owning class more often than not consists of large, unethical corporations who spend billions of dollars to have power over what we see in the media. In the pdf summary Democracy & the News, Robert McChesney concedes that “the sad truth is that the closer a story gets to corporate power and corporate domain of our society, the less reliable the news media are.” (McChesney, 2002, pg. 375).  In other words, McChesney believes that the news media we view today has been infiltrated by those who are corrupt and do not have our best interests as a society at heart.  What is more important, is how our youth are being swayed by these unreliable media messages and the effects that they will have on our future.  Were you aware of these biases prior to reading this article? I felt that, intrinsically, I was aware of the last bias, but the other two escaped my notice.  Since I was a teenager, I have avoided following many mainstream news sources for this very reason. I have always felt that there was something off about the stories, and now I know why.  Do you find yourself being more distrustful of the journalistic news stories after viewing this pdf?

 

I always assumed that children, up until they reached puberty, could be swayed by advertisements without critiquing them. I was surprised then to read in chapter 10: Consumption and Materialism of our class textbook,  Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture, that “research indicates that children under six may be critical of ads, and by the age of eight nearly all children are skeptical of advertisers’ claims.” (Sternheimer, 2013, pg. 256). My mind was blown over here! Yet, when I thought about it, this makes complete sense. As Sternheimer goes on to describe, children these days are so exposed to various forms of media, that it only makes sense that they would be able to apply the lessons that they learn in the world around them, particularly critical thinking skills, to the messages they view on the media. It is because of our fears that we are so quick to write children off as being completely able to be mindlessly swayed by media advertisements. As a parent I can relate to this. It is frightening to think that an institution may have such a direct effect on your child. Especially one that is being overrun by corporations and billionaires who most likely do not have your child’s best interest at heart.

 

I was saddened, but not entirely shocked when I read the statistics provided in the article Who gets to speak on cable news?.  Growing up, my parents watched both local and national news channels at dinner almost every night. While I did not know it at the time, I did that the news anchors, as well as the majority of guest speakers featured were predominantly white. This is still a problem today, as FAIR discovered in their five week observation experiment that “eighty four percent of guests were white (848).” There was great variance among each individual channel, but it seemed as I combed through the data that featuring white males over other races and genders was the overarching trend. I found this to be the case when I completed my own assessment of the news channels for assignment 6 of module 5. Admittedly, I was a little shocked to see that the channel frequently featured an african american FEMALE news anchor. Especially after viewing the GMMP information provided in the Who Makes the News video clip where they stated that although 51% of the world’s population is female only 24% of news anchors are female. (GMMP, 2015).  However, this news anchor’s stories were always introduced by a white male, or verified by a white male as though what she had to say was only important once it was acknowledged by her white male counterpart. Which frankly made me irritated and reiterated why I do not personally watch mainstream news channels. I believe that they like to pretend that diversity exists on these channels because they feature women and individuals of different ethnicity’s, when in reality these people end up falling into the “smurfette” principle. While these problems do exist in media, it is also the media that can be used to educate young people that these societal problems still very much reside in plain view.

After reading chapter 11: Beyond Popular Culture, I believe that Karen Sternheimer would agree with my point of view. Sternheimer argues that “pop culture matters; media analysis is a great tool for exposing the complexities of issues like violence, gender, sexuality, racism, and homophobia.” (Sternheimer, 2013, pg. 283). To me, this paragraph alone answers the question that I have been silently asking myself and answering for every module completed, “why does media education matter?” What is more important, this chapter showcases the ways in which t1he media may be used to give light to the aforementioned issues. Sternheimer asserts that “ we should engage in more media analysis,” as a society, instead of simply acknowledging that the issues exist. By becoming media literate, through the implementation of media education in the classroom, American students may use the tools that they engage with on a daily basis, such as web 2.0, to break down  the messages given to them and analyze the content for what it really is. It is my hope, that through teacher facilitated media education activities, we may teach even the youngest members of society to see through the tactics that media organizations use to lure their audience in and grab their attention. One such tactic, the one that is most used in the news in my opinion, is fear. In, The News Bias: Distorting reality and feeding fears, Radford points out that “the media profit from fear mongering through sensationalized headlines.” (Radford, 2003, pg. 3). I see this every day on my Facebook feed. Which means that the generation that is younger than mine also sees it. FAIR.org tells us that we may detect media bias by watching our for this type of “loaded language.” (Fair.org, 2016). Do you often see these tactics being used in social media by news networks and journalists to increase engagement or sway their audience?

Module 5 Review

/in /by

The key word for this module was influence. As I read the articles, powerpoints, and chapters provided, I tried to make connections with some of the most recent news stories. I was able to establish a few connections between the readings and the current American media, and recognized how much influence news sources have on the public, and also how much influence the public has on the media.

One quote I read that really resonated with me was from Robert McChesney. According to him, the closer news sources get to power, the less reliable their content will be (McChesney, 2002). The issue of journalism and democracy is especially important right now. So far this election season, we have seen biased press all favoring one candidate while continually excluding another. I remember on Monday, June 6, several news sources including the Washington Post reported that Hillary Clinton had won the democratic nomination in their headlines before California even had a chance to vote in the democratic primary, and before the super delegates could meet and help determine the final outcome. Upon reading the article further, it appeared that Clinton’s victory was merely a projection, or a prediction based on past success, and she had not actually won anything. Many readers were convinced that she had won. Others were outraged and accused the Washington Post of discouraging voter turnout and said they had been bought by the Clinton administration.  This also relates to Benjamin Redford’s idea of news bias, and how the news will distort their reporting of events in order to illicit a certain reaction or outcome from the audience (Radford, 2003). In this case, by reporting that Clinton had clinched the democratic nomination the night before the California primaries, readers assumed that Clinton had won, and voter turnout was lower than expected.

An example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/06/make-no-mistake-hillary-clinton-will-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-on-tuesday/

Another concept that resonated with me was Benjamin Radford’s analogy of “light or heat”; light represents knowledge, while heat represents sensationalism (Radford, 2003). I was reminded of how the media tends to sensationalize violence in America and glorify mass shooters, especially when religion comes into play. I remember watching the news as reporters invaded the home of the San Bernadino shooters. Reporters cleverly juxtaposed items such baby toys with Muslim literature and weapons. They would make statements identifying the baby toys as being “normal” household items, while the other religious items and weapons were associated with terrorism. The heat in this story is the perpetuation of inaccurate stereotypes about Muslims being dangerous and violent.  The light of this story should have been that the shooters were an exception when it comes to Muslim beliefs and practices, and that the majority of Muslims believe in peace.

An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHnuQxh_-tQ

It is very easy to demonize and criticize the media for society’s flaws. When James Holmes attacked dozens of people inside of a movie theater, it was easy to blame violent movies for his behavior. Whenever there is a mass shooting, it seems logical that these shooting persist because of the attention and notoriety they receive from the media. However, blaming the media for our problems completely removes responsibility from ourselves as consumers. As previously established, the media is a representation of who we are as a society, and not a reflection. We help the media create a distorted image of who we are when we encourage consumerism and sensationalism. Sternheimer (2013), suggests that rather than going on a witch hunt and blaming the media for society’s flaws, we should use it as a tool to understand who effects the media instead of how the media effects us. For instance, earlier I mentioned that the media tends to only focus on Muslim culture when it includes violence. Instead of accepting these messages as truth, we should investigate who benefits from the spread of these messages, and why it is advantageous for them.

Throughout all of these modules, one thing has been common; consumers have the power. If we do not agree with the way things are portrayed, whether it is through advertising or news stories, then it is up to us to demand a change. For instance, I remember earlier this month when Brock Turner was accused of raping an unconscious woman, and was given a light sentence because he was a great swimmer with a bright future. People became outraged with the media’s coverage of this story and were horrified at their tactics to preserve Turner’s reputation, such as using his senior class photo instead of his mugshot, or focusing on his swimming career instead of his crime, or referring to his crime as “sexual assault” instead of rape. Once there was an uproar from consumers, other news sources began to change their tone, and brought their attention to the injustice of the judicial system.

This raises the question of who influences who; does the media truly influences us, or do we influence it? I think that we influence the media through consuming. Consuming is our way of telling corporations “yes” or “no”. For instance, when we all rush to purchase guns after a mass shooting, we are communicating that fear-based news stories lead to profit. Through media literacy, we can learn how to better interpret messages and  communicate in a way that benefits society as a whole.

 

 

Module 5! We did it!

/in /by

Wow group can you believe it, this is our very last blog. During this last module I noticed some trends. The first trend I noticed was, much of what we talked about in previous modules built upon what we are learning now. The other major trend I noticed was we seem to trust the media more than we should especially the local news we watch frequently.

In the first set of slides on media and democracy what primarily stood out to me was the section on media consolidation. I had no idea that the majority of the media was controlled through a handful of billion dollar corporations. I was thinking to myself how I was so blind to how the media is run. I always assumed that such channels like ABC or Disney Channel just produced media for their broadcast. Each of these corporations dictates every form of media that gets released. TV shows, the movie industries, music producing you name it they control it. These large companies such as Disney are always looking for ways to expand making it merely impossible for independent companies to make it on their own. Another impact these so called mega-corporations have is influence on the news. These mega-corporations have become experts responding to the demands of what society wants to see on the news. However the demands are actually demands of what the media makers want to see as influential while we watch the daily news.  The main purpose of the “news media is to aim for the desired middle and upper-middle-class for their target audience” (McChesney, 2002, P. 374). As we’ve learned in module 3 when we discussed the lack of recognition the lower and poor class in the media the same subject is being brought up again. McChesney states that “Stories of great importance to tens of millions of American’s will fall through the cracks because those are not the “right” Americans” (McChesney, 2002, P. 375). The standards that are set by the media are only equal to some economic classes as we’ve seen.  Since that is the sad reality the poor and lower class isn’t receiving any support. I thought this section about mega-corporations related so closely to Sternheimer’s chapter 11 that reveals inequality is the real problem we face. Society let alone the media often does a low quality job providing equality to all people. The media likes to take sides (without you knowing) in representing what news stories are important over others.  The last section of the McChesney slides I thought made a great point. It says “we need to press for democratic values rather than the interests of capital” the way this countries morals are set. Media has taken away the right for its citizens to have a say in what goes. This is why it is important for us to push for supporting independent media makers it is more valuable and equal to all people in society.

The next section of slides titles Democracy and the News was a list of well thought out quotes of how the media shown on the news influences us with the little information they actually give us. The biggest harm media power can yield is not in creating killers, but in creating complacency. This complacency is not due to fictional entertainment, as we so often fear; it is created from news reports based on emotion and drama rather than citizenship. We are lulled not by music or movies or video games, but by programs passing as news that only skim the surface of what we need to know about our government, our corporations, our society (Sternheimer, 2003, p. 219). That quote by Sternheimer really shows how trusting we are of the media. It seems that most people have more trust in the media than they do about most things. The News on TV, on the radio, or on the internet is often poor representations of what the news story actually is yet we have so much faith in what we are seeing. The news picks out the bad and the fear and will leave us worrying when the next tragedy will happen. That is their goal to let them gain our control and influence about the news we are exposed to. But now let’s think of the flip side. We know that news that enables fear in us is shown everyday but what about the good news in the media, where is that? In Radford’s article “The News Bias Distorting Reality and Feeding Fears” addresses what happens to good news in the media. Radford states good news is no news in the media’s eyes. When was the last time we heard about something good happening in the news? If your answer is something other than once in blue moon then I would like to be directed to your source of news to make my news experience more delightful. Radford’s answer was simple good news doesn’t nearly get as much airtime as bad news, if the story “bleeds it leads” (Radford, 2003, p. 74). I think that quote is a disappointing reality about news, only if the news story seems fearful will it headline. However when a good news story is relevant it is placed on the back burner to replace it with the fear driven or negatively impacted message.  When a good news story is advertised instead of being uplifting it will be titled “some youth violence declines” it is rarely looked upon with a smile rather than passing off the story as less valuable.

The next sections of articles I thought were important touched upon the subject of who gets to speak on news channels, who is seen, and what point of view is the news taken from. In the article How to detect bias in news media mentioned a good point about the lack of diversity. The article says if you notice race and gender being unequally represented in the news outlet we watch that we should demand fairness. This article goes on to say that if there is a discussion panel of all men or an all-white crowd that they should alter their diversity to those in the public they serve. Which makes a valid point that if we sit back and don’t voice change how do we expect to see change? In an article that relates “who gets to speak on cable news?” by Peter Hart brings up a survey that was given over a five week period. After the survey was taken something major was noticed. Most of the news stories only featured men compared to women. The amount of male guest outnumbered women drastically, 730 men compared to 285 women a 72% of male population in the news (Hart, 2014, n.p.) But this wasn’t the only noticeable difference, 84% of the people on the news survey were white. This meant that only 16% of people seen were of color. These were shocking results about who is seen and speaks in the news. A third aspect to this article that I thought had value was the political party standpoint of which the message was given. In this survey the amount of republicans were outnumbered by the democrats on most news stations. The view is which a message is give is important since the republican and democratic views differ. The next article Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs can help us define what standpoint an article is coming from. A good example I found was on terrorism.  Terrorism from a liberals view will think that global warming is a larger threat than terrorism. Liberals don’t believe in relying on military forces to defeat terrorists, they think that leads to more terrorism. From a conservative view they think terrorism is the biggest threat to the U.S. Conservatives want terrorists stopped and destroyed. Using intelligence-gathering and military force is the best way to defeat terrorists. After reading this article it helped me better define the differences between the two and see the different views the news may have.

Continuing our discussion about the news and the media the GMMP (global media monitoring project) video we watched had a lot to say about gender inequality in the news. This video informed us that in their project only 24% of people in the news were women which meant men dominated the news at 76%. The project also found that 37% of reporters were female and 63% of men were reporters that took the crucial role talking about our economy, crime, and politics. Another important detail the video pointed out was that women are also misrepresented in the news. The news likes to reveal stereotypes about both men and woman, that women are seen as sex objects and men are seen as strong entrepreneurs. Women are seen as feminine and men are seen as masculine. They explained the news to be gender blind where the viewpoints of other genders such as a woman’s viewpoint won’t be shared. In the video we saw that men outnumber women in the media, especially in professions. Women are often shown as homemakers and not seen as independent which is very stereotypical. This video brought to my attention that news does more than give us news about the world but it also will categorize and stereotype to make stories sound more interesting.  And lastly this video represented to me that inequality in the news goes far beyond gender stereotyping. Inequality is all over the news in what stories are fairly represented in our media.

Based off the topic of inequality chapter 11 in Sternheimer’s book deeply touches upon the topic. I am again bringing up topic of poverty as I did earlier in this blog because Sternheimer brings up an excellent detail of how we view inequality in the media. Ads for starving children in faraway places might gain out sympathy, but poor American children are often seen as invisible or just seen as a threat to public safety (Sternheimer, 2013, P.275). This country’s media fails to recognize the 15 million children who live in poverty. When stories about poverty come up they often leave an emotional response in our minds (which it should) but instead of acting upon it, poverty is ignored and not further thought about. Ignoring an important part of our society will not make the problem go away but rather the problem of poverty will increase without any recognition. The lack of poverty in the news is an inequality. The media is ignoring a large group of people due to their ego in society. Sternheimer states it doesn’t have to be this way our media is “so enchanting, so attention seeking, it can be used to redirect our attention to the sources of our society’s problems and give a wakeup call about the persistence of inequality in the United States” (Sternheimer, 2013, p. 286). This statement proves that we need to keep our society’s real challenges in our view. This country is a democracy and we should be able to have a say in ensuring equality is provided for those who live and battle in poverty, because we are all equally important.

I saved the best for last chapter 10 from Sternheimer, A New Generation of Greed. When reading this chapter it reminded me the last module’s video the story of stuff. Both the book and the video revealed that we are living in a world where all we do is consume products. Sternheimer points out that we are a greedy nation that our happiness depends upon materialistic goods. But where do we get this greed from? Is it the influence from all the commercials and advertisements on the media? Many would answer that yes we (especially children) get our sense of urgency from the media items that are promoted to us. We seem to want the newest phone, the newest car, newest clothes but where the influence comes from isn’t all from the media. Our desires to fulfill our happiness stems from what others in society will think of us. Now relating to children, how much a child wants is in the control of the parents. If a parent is easily talked into buying their child a product then the chances of them asking for more is greater. A survey said that 94% of parents think children are spoiled but only 55% of parents think their own kids are (Sternheimer, 2013, p.251). I think parents are blind to how much money is spent on their child’s short term happiness. Children are becoming more selfish Sternheimer explains not because media is exploiting children to products but that parents are allowing it. Parents are all about pleasing their children and making sure they have new products so that their child doesn’t feel left out. But that is only part of the answer, since our society has turned into a consumption-orientated society or economy depends upon people spending money on things most of the time we don’t need. The economies forces shape our buying habits and pressure parents into “guilt money” to spend on their children to make up for time they lost while working more so they can buy more stuff (Sternheimer, 2013, p. 250). These facts brought out the ugly truth behind producers of products. They are successful making millions and billions of dollars while our society is over worked to provide for our materialistic needs. Concluding this last thought is that advertisers alone aren’t to blame for out consumption problems. Our social structure is distracted by the lust of materials causing us to make poor financial decisions and make us want more than what we have. This last section really name me realize how caught up in the world we are, and how there are influences all around us that encourage our motivations to buy excess products we don’t need.