Even though the board of directors and shareholders of a handful of corporations benefit greatly in dollar numbers by owing all of the major media companies that serve as America's news source, this idea of one company owing several new stations and print media is going to destroy out society.
The advantages of having one company owning so many different media outlets is good for the people who work in them. For example, Disney star's such as Hannah Montana, Hilary Duff, and Raven-Symone have had much success and their careers have taken off due to their multiple deals in music, television, and film...through companies that are all controlled and owned by the Disney corporation. Another advantage in the news aspect is that news will be cycled through all the stations owned by the same company and thus, the American public will be aware of the same information. Furthermore, when some of the companies that are failing (such as newspapers), the owners will not lose completely because there will be success in other ventures (such as popular television). All these advantages seem to benefit the people who get the money.
Despite all of these advantages, there are also many disadvantages to media consolidation which affect the public. Without many independent owned sources of media, the American public does not have any access to different information or anaylysis styles. Also, with having a select few people decide what gets put on television, the American public does not have as much control as it should over what they want to hear.
Media concentration limits a journalist's ability to provide important information to the citizens because it the views of the people who own the company that dictate what style is used for the media outlet. Also, due to the budgeting, many journalists are losing their jobs and so there are less journalists covering more media.
Throughout the United States' war history, the way our media covers war zones has changed significantly. The military had a firm control on what the media reported in World War 1 and the 1982 Gulf War and technology outdated the news before it even hit stands from the Civil War to World War 2. However, in recent wars such as the Iraqi war and Vietnam War the media coverage is raw, uncensored, and available live. It is in my opinion that people should get their news as soon as possible, as long as it is reliable, does not put our troops in immediate danger, and sends a message. There are videos on Youtube made by soldiers fighting in Iraq, which gives us an instant and raw look into life in combat. In my opinion, coverage of the war, ideally, should be as raw as these videos. Getting a dose of what it really is like in a war zone, and the natural reactions of our soldiers without the filtering of military officials, or edits made by producers at the news studios. However, this kind of coverage does not give us all the information we need to know about what is going on with the war. Also, there is a point into what should not be played on air, because there is a lot of swearing in the videos and war can create some horrible and terrifying images. But, I think any adult, even teenagers, need to be educated about human nature, and not be cushioned in their safe worlds of MTV, ipods, and whatever happiness money can buy. I did not change my opinion of the soldiers after hearing them swearing on the video, in fact their choice of language did not even strike my conscience at all. I understand that they are human beings and are in an intense situation, which makes me appreciate what they do for our country. In a way, I think it will be good if people learn about dealing with terrible truths and not become so closed minded and centered about themselves.
Furthermore, I believe it is the media's responsibility, above all else, to report the news with absolute truth; especially in wartime. It should not matter how terrible, horrible, or damaging the event is to our country; the truth should be told! We should not be a country that is afraid or unable to hear that we aren't winning, or that humanity doesn't exist for people in other countries. It should open our eyes to the horrors that people can do and the open ourselves to the fact that the all great United States of America isn't always perfect or does the right thing. But, with correct timing, it is also important to have a story that will inspire our country and show that there are some genuine good people that defend our country and want to help others experience the same freedom that we cherish. The media should freely expose all of the good things and bad things that happen during wartime.
I would like to be a war correspondent only if I could freely report about what I see and experience without the pressure of making people at home and my bosses happy. In a perfect world, or rather where rules were to my liking, I would do it. Today, there are so many limitations to reporting and a lot of reporters are fed information by the military which are in truth, not all that reliable. For the military likes to control what image they portray in the media. I would like to experience the emotions that come with war and write about it because to me nothing is stronger than a raw telling of an event from one person's point of view compared to articles that are very constructed and mostly give off facts and numbers. I think the biggest challenge would be dealing with death and destruction because I am a very emotional person. Also I think it is difficult for anyone to deal with war and the possiblity of losing your life.
All in all, war is something that should be reported openly and truly because it is something worth being affected by. The more immediate coverage of war will make the sounds of sights of war become regular images to the American public. This leads to less suspense to war, but it keeps people mostly up to date with the goings on of the troops.
The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case of 2006 attracted much attention and caused a media sensation. However, the variations of information and points of views expressed by the press impacted the world's opinions of the accused and accuser. With reports focusing on the race, gender, education, soicio-economic status and college athletics, the world couldn't help but to take sides. Some articles mentioned the fact that the stripper was black while the assaulters were white and that racial slurs were shouted at the accuser. Others focused on the life the lacrosse players lead at the school. A piece of Nancy Grace's report involved comparing the home and education of the Duke students to the exotic dancer. All of these factors that have very little to do with the actual facts of the rape itself, caused people to take sides (based on personal beliefs and values) and even protest.
Because of these aspects of the show, there was intense media coverage, which lead to competition between various stations and newspaper companies. Coverage on the show Nancy Grace for example, had anchor Nancy Grace berate a producer about information he was saying, then she interrogates another man who is clearly defending the boys from the lacrosse team, yet she hardly interrupts a woman speaker who essentially agrees with what the man had said before. The report on this show seemed to be more for entertainment and make people aware of the story without giving all the facts of the case. This coverage contrasts with a report made by 60 minutes which provided information from different sources, interviews from witnesses, and laid out the facts in order for the viewer to make a informed opinion about the case. As some writers there are some that did stick to the basic facts, but others, through word choice, caused bias. Some bias are against the members of the lacross team, and some bias is against the exoctic dancer.
In my opinion, the media should have more restrictions on covering a case like this in the future. There should be limited fact release immediately after the crime has been committed until all the evidence is gathered and the investigation is closed. Once the initial investigation in completed then the media can publish anything they want and any opinions and add any bias to their coverage. Therefore, we would have a better opinionated public.
Based reading the Washington Post article of Dorm Gossip Turns Limy on the Internet by Marc Fisher, I am totally against the idea of websites like JuicyCampus.com where students can anonymously post about their fellow classmates. But what the things that are mostly said, are not very polite. However, in my opinion, the worst part is people get to call out others by name, yet the posters remain unidentified. This website encourages people to abandon the rules of social etiquette and the right of privacy of an individual and reduce people to committing rude and unmoral acts without any consequence. What I dislike in an individual's character is their inability to take responsibility for their own words and actions. Where are the consequences for the people who call others "sluts" or make "racial epithets"? Shouldn't they be informed that they are degrading other people and injuring reputations not to mention feelings when they post words that are far from the truth?
Of course, most of what is published is far from the truth. That's the Internet, anyone can say anything without any evidence and any idiot can go read it and believe it to be true. That's the just the way it is. Yet, not telling the truth is very damaging, and spreading lies on these kinds of websites is immature, much like the days of middle school. These people are in COLLEGE and should understand that it is very important to maintain a good image in society. Such as the case of of the University of Virginia senior who worries that having her name on the website could jeopardize the job she just landed with a government agency. People should understand that once you say something on the Internet, it's out there, and the entire world can find it, and you can't take that back. In this case, it's other people possibly ruining your career for you. Now doesn't that sound unfair?
If I were a victim of false statements on a site like JuicyCampus.com, I would be very upset, angry, and willing to take action. It's never nice to insult someone, and the anger comes from frustation that people can be weak and rude. I am a strong believer in if you have something mean to say, say it to their face, or don't say it at all. This website ENCOURAGES weakness, so much for the brave people of America. Also, I would be worried that people would judge me from reading stupid comments on a website, and judge me without even meeting me. Thus, I would never say something to or about someone that I would not say to their face. I would not want to hurt someone else that way. However, I have no problem with saying things about people using emails or instant messaging because it does go back to me. Though I do admit, there is a weakness related to that too.
I agree with The Coming Ad Revolution that as more ads are thrown our way, as teens we will become more and more immune to them. I also think that young people subconciously embrace target advertising. It would make shopping for goods and services much easier if companies were able to make a smarter guess on what a specific user was looking for. People should learn to appreciate the small wonders of technology where by simply going to a web page can bring ads that would interest that person. This makes it possible to create our own world cartered to specific individual needs.
Yes, it is smart of advertisements companies to use popular teen sites such as Myspace or Facebook, where millions of teens around the world log in to every single day. Also, I have no problem with the Facebook site collecting data about me and other users. First of all, it is simply business, these people are attempting to better their product and services by collecting data to sell to other companies. If people expect businesses and companies to come up with new stuff that they'll like, these companies have to get information some how. Secondly, people are WILLINGLY giving their information on these websites. The point of these websites is to draw attention to our individuality and show the whole world who we are and how we feel at one moment. If people don't understand how to be careful when they uses these sites or don't have the self restraint to make right ethical choices, then that is their personal problem. However, if Facebook turned around and sold information to creepy pedophiles, then we have a HUGE problem.
I usually don't look to my friend's entries in Facebook as a source of advice about what to buy. I usually get more inspiration from magazines and celebrities. But my buying choices are also dependent on other factors such as how it personally looks on me, the cost, and the real need of the product. Yes, I do think that future online social networks will be used more aggressively by advertisers, but this will lead to more numbness to ads by consumers. All in all, the way people spend money and buy products will relatively stay in the similar patterns that are established.
Overall, I think advertising affects my life, but definetely not to the extent of impacting my decisions as an individual. However, there are those few occasions where a good movie ad, or a good ad for a clothing line, or an ad for a restaurant has inspired me to do certain things. Like the movie ads for the Death Note movies, they way there were edited and the bits they chose to show, gave me an adrenaline rush and a sudden need to go to a movie theatre in Japan. An ad that makes me want to travel halfway around the world and learn a new language seems pretty good to me. Other instances include looking at product ads for clothes and accessories in magazines such as Seventeen and Marie Claire inspire me to add certain things to my wardrobe. I, however, unlike some teens, do consider cost and the acutal need to buy such item. Yet, my individuality is created out of ads. Movies I like, clothes I like, store that I shop at, the type of foods I go for, the brands I know...it all leads back to, in my own opinion, effective advertising.
Yes, companies may spend billions upon billions of dollars on ads attempting to influence the public to buy their products. However, I don't know anyone my age who is throughly driven by advertising. But, I cannot deny that people's choices, however subconcious, are made because of advertising. For people can only make choices, based on what they know and experience. Thus, as many of my friends are bombarded by advertisments everywhere they go, including school, choices will be made on those advertisments. It's like how a lot of political candidates get by, on name recognition. I think I am just as influeced by advertisment just like everyone else I know.
No, I don't consider myself materialistic, because I don't need material things to be happy. Yes, I do admit to shopping to feel better, but overall my priorities for happiness are with good happy moments. Such as being with friends and family, or feeling achievement from hard work. However, good advertising and seeing friends own certain does increase my desire sometimes to own things. But, I'm pretty good at making compromises with myself and understanding that some things I can just live without or wait until a sale comes around. With a great amount of self-control, resisting the urges that come from advertising is possible.
I have several conflicting opinions on what should be and most definetely should not be used in advertisments. First of all, let's adress the Lipitor advertisments that feature Dr. Robert Jarvik as their "celebirty endorser". On behalf of the producers, they can use whoever and do whatever they want in order to market their product. That's how you play the economy. That's business; period. Here, in this example, the public must take responsiblity of making sure they don't just request a certain prescription from their doctor just because a) they saw an ad on television, 2) some famous guy (who's not even a licensed doctor) uses it and is promoting, and 3) the Pfizer company is telling you to buy it. Now, THAT is stupid. All that I see being done here is a company straightfowardly marketing a product in attempting to make a profit, which they have every right to do. Helping people become healthier is just a bonus. It is up to one's doctor to help their patient make the best decision possible for their health, whether is involves Lipitor or not.
However, in the case of the Abercrombie and Fitch ads, there should be a couple producers out there taking some responsibility...or at least get a few punches in the head for morality and smart decision making. To display obscene photographs, aka half naked young men and a mostly naked woman, in a public mall is very irresponsible. Yes, sex may sell, but it must be for the right consumers. Stores like Abercrombie and Fitch attract customers who are young in age and should not be exposed to this type of advertisment yet. What is annoying is that people complain how the new generation is more promiscuous and lack proper etiquette, well then how are they supposed to follow good example when there are none? Advertisment anywhere has the power to make people get an idea of a twisted reality. People, usually don't strip down in random meadows without the influences of alcohol at least, so what kind of "real" concept is this? Furthermore, shouldn't Abercrombie and Fitch be attempting to sell clothes?!?!!??! How are they doing this, when their ads show people half naked? They are setting social standards, not marketing goods and this is completely unacceptable.
Use of Media to Promote First Amendment: Proper or Improper? Media Literacy Blog #1
Posted by MLSMedia is a basic tool, but a very powerful one. An example of its power can be seen in a Virginia student's decision to post a message left on his cell phone by a Fairfax County public school administor's wife. Senior Devaj "Dave" S. Kori, left a message at Dean Tistadt's personal home number after a snowfall asking why schools had not closed. Later, Dean Tistadt's wife left a message on his cell phone in which she uttered, "snotty-nosed little brats" and said " Get over it, kid, and go to school!" Kori then took Tistadt's message and posted an adutio link on a Facebook page and the message was posted on Youtube. What is important to understand here, is that the interent is a interesting, yet powerful way for teenagers and young adults, who know how to work this technology, to express their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. Personally, I feel there is nothing wrong with expressing personal opinions or other issues that should get media by starting a page on the internet.
Mrs. Tistadt's naivity comes from a geration gap on technology. What the world has to understand that, anything that is said or written, can no longer be private. Once it is on the internet, anyone, anywhere can have access to it. This is a new standard and expectation that people must get used to.
It is promising and inspring that common media can be used to get a story started on the interet on websites such as Facebook and Youtube, and become major national stories in papers such as The Wasthington Post and discussed on television on shows such as Good Morning America. This way, practically everyone can make a difference by merely knowing how to hit the Internet Explorer button.