Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Discussion 11

2.  When it comes to defamation of character, the press is given greater latitude when it comes to public figures than with private citizens. Is this appropriate? Why or why not?

I think that it is important that the press can freely analyze the actions and morals of public figures, especially political figures. That said, if they had less latitude, they would be subject to a great amount of litigation just from stating facts. The individual being written about could easily sue on the grounds of defamation, even if that was not the motive of the press. They would do this to avoid negative press. This actually does happen even now with the great freedom the press has. It even happens when private citizens try to spread the word on negative aspects of corporations and politicians. But, it does not happen to near the extent that it could. I believe this is appropriate because of the need to protect the privacy of citizens and to have the freedom of press to hold prominent people and organizations accountable. 

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Web Critique 11

Website Name:  Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Inc. (FAIR), www.fair.org
Operated By:  Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Inc.
Funded By: Donations. They are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

This website has an interesting goal- to provide an aggressive independent check for the large corporate media in our country.  They detect skewing of information, media censorship, and unfairness/bias in reporting. I agree with the makers of this site that such an organization is important to ensure that the media is reporting correctly. I currently feel that they are not, but that is another issue entirely. You can choose options from a list and go quickly to a collection of articles on the topic or geographical region you choose. There is a blog and a collection of studies FAIR has done. I think it is good that they not only analyze current media coverage, but also conduct actual studies in different areas and then provide these on their website. The website has access to their print publication, Extra!, and radio show and several prominent links to donate. I’d say that their writers are about as liberal most times as the regular media, but at least try to be balanced. I think the site could choose a more modern and slick looking cover for their publication. I feel that it looks a bit childish, with its use of cartoons on its front. Overall, there is not much negative to say. 

Teacher Response to Special Project

Great job, Dana, and good critical thinking! Yours is the best paper I have graded so far. Please read the attachment and let me know if you have any questions.


You did a great job on this. Please review the notes below and the rubric parameters. This assignment’s main purpose was to lead students to see the ‘big picture’ of the state of political media coverage in the USA today. Our forefathers recognized the importance of a well informed populace who can vote intelligently on issues affecting the country. Thomas Jefferson said,  ". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." He also said, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491 and "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787  and "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.  
When only 5 huge corporations own most of the media, they are not interested in the common good or guarding our freedom.  Corporations are interested in profit, ratings and entertaining the public.  Hard news is rather boring to the general public (like C-Span) so most of what we see on TV and hear on the radio is entertaining or sensational news. There is also corporate bias in the news and contrary to common belief (or propaganda) the bias is to the right not the left.
Media Scholar Bob McChesney calls the 1996 Tele-Com Act one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation passed in the 20th century. Here is a summary of what the 1996 Tele-Com Act changed:
  • Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
  • Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
  • The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
  • The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
  • The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
  • The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.
The consequences from the 1996 Tele-Com Act have been far reaching and continue to impact the American public, as is documented well in a Common Cause report entitled “The Fallout from the 1996 Telecommunication Act.” One of the consequences of the 1996 Tele-Com Act has been the reduction in female and minority ownership of media, which has also resulted in a decrease in women’s and minority voices in news coverage. . It has also greatly increased profit motivation in news reporting that is sometimes frivolous (such as celebrity lives) yet of interest to the general public.
One more important outcome of the Clinton administration’s passage of the 1996 Tele-Com Act has been the ongoing relationship between the telecom industry and the Democrats. According to the Center for Public Integrity, from 1998-2004 the Democrats received over $82 million from the telecom industry and the Republicans just over $63 million. In the same way that Clinton’s support of NAFTA, the war in Iraq, and welfare reform have been a detriment to working people, media deregulation under Clinton has only benefited big business. Clinton is now sorry that this happened.
Sorry it took me so long to get all of these graded but it has been a very busy semester and this is a time consuming grading job. The state of media in our country is adversely affecting our democracy and it is important that we all understand this. Let me know if you have any questions about the assignment. :-) 
I gave you a few extra points that were hard to differentiate in the rubric.
It is a pleasure having you in the class and I hope you have learned a lot in this class!
Dr. B.

 

You are obviously interested in learning the truth but have some confusion that can possibly be due to listening to FOX news. Here are some studies about various news sources that show without exception that FOX is the least reliable source.
Fox Acknowledges Its "Hard Right Turn"

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study
Fox: The Liars' Network

Study: Fox News Viewers Misunderstand Issues More than Others

How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory
The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed
Some News Leaves People Knowing Less http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/
Study: Fox News Viewers Have an IQ 20 Points Below US Average
Study: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News
By Michael Kelley  This post originally appeared in Business Insider on May 22, 2012.
4th Annual TV News Trust Poll


Monday, March 30, 2015

Special Project

You are to analyze various news sources - at least 4 different sources. Record your observations & answer the following questions:
  1. What biases appear in the media regarding the branches of the federal
    government and interest groups?  
  2. What presidential and congressional actions seem to create the most media coverage?  
  3. Do you feel the media covers the most important issues?  If not, why not?
  4. What are your views of the President's and Congress's policies, including foreign policy, domestic policy and relations with the other branches of government? 
Dana Miller
Special Project

SOURCES:
1.      SALON. www.salon.com/category/politics
2.      NBC News. www.nbcnews.com/politics

OBSERVATIONS:
1.      SALON
This is a liberal/left website, and they have an entire section to discuss “the right”.
Many articles on the website showed a clear, and unashamed, bias against some interest groups, especially the GOP (and conservatives in general), among others like the NRA, Citizens United, National Right to Life, etc. Noticed one article that criticized the “conservative” Supreme Court of the US for the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Throughout the entire website, much bias, not all unfair however, was seen. Most of it was toward conservative people, especially the idea that conservative interests are always money-focused or in the best interests of the wealthy.  There is a bias about conservatives that they are “anti-woman”. Words like “delusional”, “hypocrite”, “extreme religious views”, “blowhard”, “dubious”, “love Israel”, and “screw the environment” were used to describe conservatives or their views. This site knows it’s biased and is proud of it.
2.       NBC News
This is also a liberal website. However, at first glance, I saw a more balanced collection of reporting than on SALON. In one article, for instance, there was mention of a problematic headline for Hillary Clinton, as her organization-The Clinton Foundation, apparently unethically accepted an unsolicited donation of $500,000 from Algeria. The site is clearly against most things conservative, but not as one-sided as SALON. They took an opportunity from CPAC to poke fun at conservative Presidential hopefuls with a video of their smirks set to old-timey country music. Fairly balanced coverage of the Homeland Security Budget issues was found. Some statements were not in favor of the President, although many were. I found that the site had many posts in favor of equality which in a way might remove some social order. An example would be their positive coverage of Eric Holder calling for lower proof standards in civil rights cases. They frequently cover stories of GOP leader blunders, such as recent comments made by a lawmaker about female anatomy. There is great bias among liberal websites regarding their pro-choice views.
3.       NPR
NPR is a pretty neutral news source, funded by the government and all, however, I noticed that there were a lot of references to “conservatives” and no mention of “liberals”. It is almost like they want readers to identify or agree with their reporting and then to see conservatives as “the other guys” or as a group that readers are not a part of. Maybe this is due to the great partisan divide in Congress and the fact that our Legislative branch has a GOP majority and our Executive branch, namely our President, is Democrat. I notice strong equality themes in NPR and also a lot of legitimately balanced reporting as well.  Both NBC and NPR were less biased than Salon.
4.       FOX News
This is a conservative news outlet on the opposite end of the spectrum from the liberal ones. Not as harsh as SALON, but not quite as neutral in its views as NPR. Like SALON, they are not trying to hide their biases. It used the word “coffers” with a negative connotation to get across a negative slant on Obama’s affirmative action in regards to illegal immigrants, and the immigrants getting to go to college free here in America. They focus on some issues that other news stations ignore, for instance the Benghazi scandal which has been lightly reported by liberal news outlets, although I did see it mentioned on one of the liberal sites. I see a bit of a bias toward Christianity as there are mostly posts about Catholicism in their Religion page. FOX was the only major, fairly reliable news outlet that I found that did not bias toward the left.

DISCUSSION:
What biases appear in the media regarding the branches of the federal
government and interest groups?  
~In the media I see some biases regarding the executive branch from the Conservative side especially. They seem to be critical of his actions (not necessarily bad, since elected leaders must be accountable for their actions) especially regarding his foreign policy and immigration reform. I am not sure of the reason for this bias, maybe it is to get more GOP (interest group) support among voters, but after perusing the White House website, I see quite a bit of reasonable policy coming from the White House regarding the issues most criticized.  I see some bias however throughout the majority of media outlets toward the left/liberal direction. Judging from our close elections in recent years, the American people are not so shifted in majority. This denotes a bias.  The media, even if in minor ways, tend to support, or write about in more positive ways, typical liberal agenda, i.e. abortion, equality, higher taxation of the rich, entitlements, political correctness, civil rights, immigration reform, and much more.
The biggest means of biases I saw was a bias against interest groups.  I felt that most criticisms and biases arise when a person (i.e. President, lawmaker, member of executive branch, etc.), group of persons (i.e. Supreme Court judges, Senate majority, etc.), or interest group (GOP, Democratic Party, Nat’l. Right to Life Committee, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, etc.) is polarized into “liberal” or “conservative” camps. Then once labeled, the respective news sources keep those labels and take sides. Partisanship and “liberal vs. conservative” were definitely the number 1 and 2 avenues of biases I saw. 
I’d like to take a moment to note an interesting confirmation I found after I had answered this question and done my research: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664 is an article I ran across while studying for this special project. Although published in 2005, I feel that it still reflects what I have seen in doing this project. I thought it was worth mentioning.
What presidential and congressional actions seem to create the most media coverage?  
~The actions of the President and Congress which seem to generate the most media coverage are ones that are hot-button issues of the day. Anything that will bring about a buzz. Some major topics include: immigration(like Obama’s recent executive order), foreign policy(currently ISIL/middle-eastern issues), anything to do with LGBT rights/civil liberties/abortion/voter ID, funding/budget shortfalls, partisan conflicts, education reform(budgeting/common core), healthcare (Obamacare), and religious freedom/equality/extremism.
Do you feel the media covers the most important issues?  If not, why not?
~Yes and no. The important issues are covered, but honestly, you have to dig through so much soft news, that it is sometimes hard to find the stories you’d like to read. Some examples: #TheDress-is it gold and white or black and blue? or the inevitable “5 Sex Secrets” articles and celebrity gossip in many news outlets. I feel that news dilution by soft news is one of the major problems with media today. But this will not go away any time soon, because the public enjoys the “wow!” stories so much.
What are your views of the President's and Congress's policies, including foreign policy, domestic policy, and relations with the other branches of government? 
               ~I will openly admit that I am a bit confused on what to believe at this point in some areas. I like reading the www.congress.gov website and the www.whitehouse.gov website for information because I know that the only slant that I will encounter is that the government officials are doing just the right thing. I can anticipate that and think for myself. Navigating the media reports on these issues is more tricky, because it brings in many other slants, liberal v conservative, partisanship, personal opinions of reporters, and more. However I know that a free press is necessary to hold the government accountable and to have reports that are independent of direct government control. Knowing what I do now about bias on both sides of the liberal-conservative spectrum, but especially liberal bias, I struggle to bring forth a stable group of ideals for myself about the current foreign and domestic policy, and relations between the branches of government. However, upon researching, I do know some basics and will set them forth.
               My view of the President’s foreign policy, is positive. I have read his positions thoroughly on www.whitehouse.gov and am thankful that he is taking a stand against ISIL.  I think that the American government handled the Ebola outbreak efficiently, although the media would have had the public think otherwise and go into a panic. I do not appreciate the way that the media sensationalizes the issues of foreign policy. They instill much fear into citizens. I think that Congress, is also doing a decent job with their foreign policy. I appreciate the increased sanctions on North Korea, however, I am not very happy that the President and Congress are becoming more open to trade with Cuba, and that we are major trade partners with China. Both of those countries, and others, are extremely oppressive to their citizens and restrict freedoms extensively with their communist governments. I note that many upcoming bills in the Foreign Affairs category of Congress have to do with promoting peace, freedom, and equality in other countries. I agree that a peaceful world is a major part of maintaining security for our country. As long as international support does not take away from domestic needs, I am okay with this approach. Isolationism does not work in today’s connected world.
               My views on the current domestic policy of our President and Congress are more mixed. This is where the rubber often hits the road with the media. They have a hay-day with these issues. Domestic policy is the main stuff of our life in America. In Congress, it is divided into 6 main groups of issues. (1) Children and Families. I feel that the current approach to handling these issues is solid. The government seems to attempt to provide at least equality of opportunity to the disadvantaged. However, I feel that welfare is taken advantage of and needs greater oversight to prevent abuse by recipients. (2) Domestic Security and Immigration. This is also a tricky subject, however upon reading the President’s statements about Immigration, I tend to agree with what he is saying. However, media reports that crime rates in border areas is greatly increased and that it is a mess in those areas. Border security has been increased, but to what effect? How exactly does the President plan on implementing his plan to legalize certain immigrants and get them started paying taxes like they ought? There are a lot of unanswered questions for me in this area. As for domestic security, police brutality is a current issue that is ongoing. I feel that this, while immensely important to punish when it occurs, has been overblown by the media and also citizens. The majority of police officers are not racists and do not arbitrarily kill citizens. (3) Education and Labor. Obama is a huge proponent of education and Congress is currently working hard to continue improving our education system in America. I agree with Obama’s raising of the Pell Grant. This is immensely helpful. I am grateful for student aid offered to individuals today through government grants and loans. Obama has proposed free community college opportunity for all, and I am currently unsure about this as I wonder where the funding will come for such a thing. (4) Health Insurance and Financing. I am very disappointed that in the Land of the Free we are penalized for not purchasing health insurance. I understand why the legislation requires that, but am still disappointed that another way could not be found. I am also discouraged that the passing of the “Obamacare” Act was so disorganized and wrought with failures, although it has succeeded in being enacted. (5) Health Services and Research. Under this category, I am supportive for the most part of actions, but as has been recently in the media, am unsatisfied with the actions of our government regarding veteran’s health affairs. (6) Income Security. Social Security…I am not sure what to believe on this one. Conservative media uses this topic to vilify government spending on entitlements. “Will there be any Social Security money left when we retire?”, they ask. I truly don’t know.
               Relations with other branches of government can be tense at times. Most recently, the President’s veto of the Keystone pipeline bill is an example.  I see much partisan conflict, even on the part of the President between Congress. I wish that the different branches would try to compromise more with one another and stop the filibustering and delays to necessary funding and laws that need to be passed.  I think the media likes to cover these issues and use them to make one side or the other look bad. 

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Discussion 5

Prompt: When has unconventional participation been successful in bringing about political change in U.S. history? Are those instances viewed differently in hindsight than they were at the time? Why?

I think that the reason that unconventional participation is so successful in bringing about political change is its ability to draw public attention. The media usually covers these occurrences and brings the issues to public attention. Then, citizens will make a choice about the issue.  A major issue that was brought further to the light through unconventional participation is the Selma march in 1965. The awful governmental response to the demonstration only further alerted the public to the problem. Then, pressure has been continually placed upon politicians about civil rights, even to this day.  Looking back upon the Selma demonstration, however, there has been a huge change in climate for blacks, and the demonstration is now viewed solemnly as a day when those facing voting right discrimination stood up and were successful in awakening the nation to the civil rights issue. Now the attitude of most black and white people alike is a gladness that change has occurred for those oppressed in our country. This change is a direct result of the attention brought to the issue by the numerous forms of conventional and unconventional participation performed in the past. If no one were to speak up, nothing would have changed.  

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Instructor's Notes-The Media

Instructor Notes for Week 4 - Chapter 6 – The Media
This chapter in our textbook gives the basics about the media but it reminds me of the book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by Dr. James W. Loewen (Links to an external site.) who is a regular contributor to the History Channel's History magazine and is a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Vermont. I highly recommend his book as it highlights the history that is left out of textbooks.

I will share some thoughts that are not in the textbook for this Chapter. For some time, it has been my belief that the corporate owned media was the greatest threat to our democracy due to the lack of real news, the lack of true journalists and the influence of corporate interests in setting the agenda of the news in the broadcast media. (I now believe that the infamous Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United making corporations people is even more dangerous - but more about that later).

It is essential that a democracy have a well-informed electorate (voters) to function properly. I consider most of the ‘news’ delivered via the corporate media is essentially what the corporations 
want us to hear. The chapter hints at this truth but doesn’t develop the idea. We could spend an entire semester on this topic but I will just give you a few highlights. I am surprised that the textbook doesn’t have a graphic that shows the six giant corporations that own our media such as this: MediaOwners.jpg
          Fox News falls under the NewCorp group and has been a popular station in the USA despite the fact that numerous studies have shown it to be the least credible (honest) and the most burdened with all the scandals and legal issues in recent years. Fox news also bears the burden of its President, Roger Ailes, and his dubious reputation. Tim Dickinson is one of the talented, investigative journalists today and his article about Roger Ailes is something I recommend that you read if you have not yet read it.

 RogerAiles.jpg
Do other network executives feel the same way?
There are many issues that we now face with the lack of honest and complete news coverage in the USA which many believe has led to the ‘dumbing down” of the American public. Here is a recent example – did any of you see the largest protest the world that took place in Mexico in July 2012 on our broadcast news?
Largest protest ever in the world and the USA broadcast media is not reporting this!

2012 biggest protest the world has ever seen mexico ! (Links to an external site.)This begs the question – what else is our media failing to report to the public?There is much more but this is enough to give you a bit more background for our study as we look at the media.   (For spring and fall semesters but NOT for summer students) - Please note that there is a Special Project assignment this week but it is not due until the end of next week. It is worth 100 points and will be used as our required Butler Assessment for our class. Please complete this assignment according to the directions.
Here is a video that may help you with the Special Project Assignment:
A 'must see' brief history of how our News became corporate opinions in the USA by the astute Thom Hartmann (Links to an external site.) -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKLFn0pty4 (Links to an external site.)
Let me know if you have any questions about it or anything else.
Enjoy the study of the Media!
Dr. B.

Discussion 4

Prompt:  

In the United States, the mass media are predominantly owned by for-profit corporations. Do those companies have any particular obligation to the public in how they cover the news? Or, is their obligation to simply focus on returning a profit for their investors?

My response:

I think that morally, these corporations should be committed to providing truthful information to the public. However, even the most committed to honestly still may subtly instill a bias into their reporting. Also, from a Capitalistic standpoint, the media will do what it takes to continue receiving funding from their corporate owners. These two simple facts are why we as the public need to be discerning when processing data from the mass media. Simply asking ourselves "what are they really trying to say?" or "what message are they trying to imprint upon the public?" can go a long way in decoding the rhetoric so commonly seen especially in newspaper headlines, major television news channels, or opinion websites. The reason I mention rhetoric is because many reporters, writers, news anchors, and politicians are expert rhetoricians. They know how to say something and send a message that may not be overt. I am not saying we should be constantly fearing conspiracies or brainwashing, just that we need to realize that everyone has an angle, which is not a bad thing. It's only natural. We can have freedom from being tossed to and fro by the opinions of the mass media with a little thinkwork of our own.