http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/20/fda-genetically-modified-salmon-gmo/
Fox News is a sure bet for an angenda-setting article, upon looking at the homepage I was hit with Breaking News bars in fire hydrant red, and titles like 'Abortion joins 'don't ask' in Defense Budget Battle' and 'Kids Tracked More Closely Online Than Adults'. My first impression was, "Wow, what a crappy world", then I took a moment to gaurd myself from the large font headlines (larger font implies a greater importance) and flashing red news bars to realize that there was not a single positive article on this entire homepage, with all of our politicians being corrupt and internet and video-games brain washing our children; how could there be any good to report? When I think of agenda-setting, I think of big corporations like Fox News, whose overtly conservative nature is known throughout America, yet it still has the tagline 'Fair & Balanced'.
The article that I chose to focus on was entitled "Frankenfood" Coming Soon to a Store Near You?", this title has it all in my opinion. First, I want to point out the great Frankenstein reference which anyone over the age of 6 will understand that Franken-anything means that it is genectically altared and not natural. Second, I'd like to note the usage of the word 'You'; when used in the headline immediately draws the reader in, immediately thinking that the next time they go to the grocery store, Frankenfood is going to attack. The article in reality deals with a new genetically enhanced salmon that the Food and Drug Association is looking into. The first half of the article warns the reader of these 'frankenfoods' which would open the door for a new section in the grocery store between frozen and organic; infering that if this salmon is approved, all of our fish will be genetically engineered. The article states half-way through that: " the FDA said there were no biologically relevant differences between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon, and there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from its consumption." The creator of this salmon, Ron Stotish the cheif executive of AquaBounty, says the fish would be breed in better conditions than many of the worlds farmed salmon. The main concern here is the long term effects of eating a genectically engineered fish and the labeling of the fish, would consumers know what they were actually eating?
The media has evolved over the years from being our trusted 'watch-dogs' of America, to neither our friend nor foe. The love-hate relationship that society has with the media stems from the level of trust that has been broken between news anchors and its viewers. Rogers & Dearing make a point to state that the "agenda-setting tradition is concerned with how the media angenda influences the public agenda" (pg. 2 of 10), by media agenda Rogers & Dearing refer to the "issues or events that are viewed at a point in time as ranked in a hierarchy or importance" (pg. 2 of 10). This agenda-setting is dangerous because a small group of people is left to decide was is or is not important for the public to know. That gives that small group an extreme amount of power. McCombs & Shaw make an excellent point that "while the mass media may have little influence on the direction or intensity of attitudes, it is hypothesized that the mass media set the agenda for each political campaign, influencing the...attitudes toward the political issues" (pg. 2 of 11). I thought this was important to note because influence a general attitude of the public overall has a greater effect since most of the public would not get into long discussions about each issues but having a positive or negative attitude towards the issue will be seen in polls and surveys where the person checking the box for their opinion is probably not very informed about the entire issue at hand. Which goes along with how th majority of the public will only get information from one news source rather than check all of the available sources for all the facts.
So to Frankenfood or not to Frankenfood?
Before even reading the blogs for this week, I knew Fox News would be the topic of discussion for their not so “fair and balanced” agenda setting techniques. As Erin points out, Fox News does a great job at luring in its viewers and loyal followers. With big red text and enticing headlines, such as the one mentioned “Frankenfood, Coming to a Store near You”, any impressionable person is going to want to read more. I believe that most Fox News supporters depend strictly on Fox News for their news intake because they tend to always agree with their views. This conclusion supports the media system dependency theory. As stated in Mass Communication Theory on page 273, “media system dependency theory assumes that the more a person depends on having his or her needs met by media use, the more important will be the role that media play in a person’s life, and therefore more influence those media will have on that person.” Because the viewers want to watch a news station that agrees with their conservative viewpoints, Fox News meets their needs. In effect, the viewer returns each day to Fox News and depends on them as their reliable source. Anything they hear on Fox, they will assume as the complete truth and are more influenced. For example, if a person who shares the same perspectives as Fox News were to read the article in Erin’s blog “Frankenfood, Coming to a Store near You,” they would most likely take the article at face value; reading it, ingesting the information, deciding to act on the information or not and then moving on with life. A consistent Fox News viewer would most likely not take the time to do more research to find out the different opinion of other major news networks.
ReplyDeleteHow does a news network get away with agenda setting and falsified headlines? I think it has everything to do with our society. As McQuail states on page 385 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, “The more the media speaks in one voice, and the more people are disconnected from each other, from intermediate organizations and form their past, the more absolute is the rule of the media in their masters.” Because the news media industry has decided to take sides (right winged or left winged), they have each developed their own voice. People don’t have the time to sit down for the nightly news and watch three different networks. They watch their favorite network and absorbed the information they spit out, even if it is only one side of the story. No matter if it is Fox News or ABC, each news source is guilty of agenda setting to keep up with the rest of the industry.
Enough has been said in the blog articles and comments about the relationship between Fox News and agenda-setting theories, so I’ll do little to rehash any of that and instead move on to the article.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the word “Frankenfood” is absolutely ridiculous, and I can’t imagine any food researcher or scientist being able to refer to it as such with a completely straight face. As Erin wrote, it conjures up an image of something grotesque and unnatural, the exact opposite of what food should be. In the context of agenda-setting, use of this term is a perfect example of priming. While page 280 of the Baran and Davis text defines priming in strictly political terms, its use is equally as valid here. In giving the subject an off-putting name, they put it in a negative light right off the bat. I also agree with Erin’s comments about use of the word “you” in the article’s headline, and feel that it fits with this idea of priming the audience to feel negatively toward genetically engineered fish.
However, what I wasn’t expecting was the article’s objectivity. As far as Fox News goes, it was pretty fair, giving both sides representation and discussing both the pros and cons of the issue. In fact, I was surprised to see that other than the little quip about the fish’s growth in the beginning of the article, the first mention of the food’s negative effects wasn’t until the twelfth paragraph.
Regardless of the reporting, and given Fox News’ audience, I don’t know how many people are going to visit the website, see an article with the word “Frankenfood” in the title, read the entire thing thoroughly, and emerge on the other side with a positive outlook. This is a shame, because the article was actually very informative. I didn’t know about this type of genetic engineering at all prior to reading it for this assignment. Thanks, Fox News!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd the answer is to NOT Frankenfood...
ReplyDeleteRoger and Dearing quote Bernard Cohen, “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its reader what to think about…The world will look different to different people, depending…on the map that is drawn for them” (80). This is putting someone on the bridge to nowhere. Media outlets like Fox news put their viewers on the bridge to nowhere by giving them the impression that everything that doesn’t fit in with the conservative/republican agenda is bad. Such is the case with the “Frankenfood, Coming Soon to a Store Near You?” article. The title alone puts viewers on the bridge to nowhere about genetically modified foods and prepares viewers to hear the worst.
While the Fox News article attempts to provide a balanced view of the food throughout the article, someone who only reads the title/lede would get the wrong impression of the genetically modified fish. The title/lede reads, “Watch for a new section between "frozen foods" and "organic" in your supermarket: genetically engineered. That is, if the government approves the so-called "frankenfoods" for sale.” Words/phrases like “watch out” and “frankenfoods” just make me want to know where and when so that I can keep my distance.
After reading the article and hearing the hubbub about genetically modified food in general, I am confident that I want none of it. The sad thing is that genetically modified food is a technological advancement that has the potential reduce or end world hunger. While being fully aware of this I just can’t change my mind. This may be because of an idea that Katz discussed. According to Katz, authors agree that, “…the media are active agents of false consciousness, constraining people to misperceive their environment and their own place in it” (386). I’m quite conscious of both sides of the argument, but I don’t know where I fit into the whole debacle (What’s true and what’s not true). Since I feel like I have no say in the matter and am not being presented with anything conclusive, I’d rather not be bothered at all. Maybe in 10 or 20 years all of the facts will be out about genetically modified foods and then I can jump on the bandwagon.
Just the term "Frankenfood" itself makes me cringe! I feel that people in general now a days don't eat healthy enough as is, not to mention bringing in "genetically modified" foods. I became a vegetarian for this reason (and also due to my love of animals). The media can be used to educate the public about these issues. Iyengar and Kinder wrote "Americans' view of their society and nation are powerfully shaped by the stories that appear on the evening news" (Baran and Davis 281). If this is the case, why should reports on food be any different? In my opinion, I hope that these media reports on "Frankenfood" scare consumers enough to not buy these products as well as educate them about what they are putting into their mouths and fueling their bodies with. The Roger and Dearing article states, " Most agenda-setting studies have combined content analysis of news media and interviews of media audiences to assess how well media priorities and audience priorities coincide." In this case, I hope both the media and audience have the same priority of wanting to know the truth about these "Frankenfoods".
ReplyDeleteIt seems that I'm not the only one upset by the use of the word "Frankenfood." That word alone puts an unbalanced spin on the entire article. Anyone who has taken a 100-level journalism course knows that a good journalist reports the facts only, leaving their feelings out of it. The author of this article clearly resents genetically altered food, and unfortunately, that sentiment is forced on any weak mind that may come across the article.
ReplyDeleteLet's look, for example, at the following sentence from that article. "Although the potential benefits -- and profits -- are huge, many individuals have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures." Why do the "potential benefits" only get a mere mention here? And why is the word "profits" isolated? Because whoever wrote this article clearly wanted to portray the message that "Frankenfoods" are a bad idea, and that it's those darn fat cats who are just trying to make a pretty penny and sell you fake food products.
We've talked about "gatekeeping" as the act of selecting which stories make the news, but I think gatekeeping also applies to stories themselves. This journalist chose to only include certain information in this article, and as a result, the article is completely slanted with a negative spin of genetically modified foods. Perhaps if we took the same story and only included the benefits of GM foods (which is the more common term for it before "Frankenfoods"), everyone would be all for it! Persuasive writing 101.
Chapter 10 of Baran and Davis refers to "agenda-setting" as "the idea that the media don't tell people what to think, but what to think about" (Baran and Davis 279). Unfortunately, I've found that Fox News only wants you to think about things that they think need to be changed, and often times they use fear to stir their audience to action. This "Frankenfoods" article is a perfect example of second-order agenda setting (Baran and Davis 282).
Another observation I've found interesting was from the Katz reading on page 380. Katz states that "individuals will not express their opinions if they perceive themselves unsupported by others" (Katz 380). In my opinion, I've found that the support system in the Republican party is much stronger than that of the Democratic party. Sure, both liberals and conservatives have their "extreme" views, but in my experience I've noticed that conservatives tend to band together more than liberals do when it comes to expressing their views. Since the support system is so great, Katz's observation applies directly to the Republican party. I feel that conservatives have gained a lot of force over the past few years because they are not afraid to state their opinions, since they have such a large group supporting them and their beliefs. Unfortunately, the result of something like this is, in fact, biased media. Perhaps the media thinks it's okay to use the term "Frankenfoods" because they are aware of the large population of people who support this idea due to a conservative mindset. Of course, this is in no way any sort of attack on conservatives. If anything, it's a testament to the strength of their party. However, this kind of strength in ANY party can lead to one tripping over their own feet in certain areas, such as media.
My thoughts are pretty much on the same page as most others in thinking that agenda setting is indeed "bad". Of course its wrong to only include some news and exclude others due to bias of the particular medium. However, in the case of Frankenfish,I'm not so sure that the idea of agenda setting is an appropriate way to describe its title.
ReplyDeleteEver since we were little, we were taught to entice our readers into our writing with the opening paragraph. So why is this different? Apparently this article did a great job of enticing too! I mean, they must if they have students writing about it for a media class. But, I do not see the use of the word "you" as agenda setting, at least in this particular article. People are interested in things that involve them. If I saw an article that had the word Denver in it, I would right off the back be enticed, and I don't think i would see it as agenda setting.
However, I do think that because this article comes from a well known biasly conservative paper, the articles contents do in fact contain agenda setting. With just the begginging of the article, they very briefly discuss that they grow twice as fast (pretty cool) while right after, it very deeply discuses the fact that opens the door for cloning (deemed as bad amongst conservatives)
However, everyone knows that Fox is a conservative news orginization, so my advise, again like many others, is to just simply look at more than one paper. If you know that one is conservative, then read a second that is deemed most often liberal.
McQuail says, “The more the media speaks in one voice, and the more people are disconnected from each other, from intermediate organizations and form their past, the more absolute is the rule of the media in their masters," So change that! Become more knowledgeable, and consult more sources! Read the facts not the opinions, research what you are interested in and create your own from it
I agree with Mike in that I do see two sides to the story. On one side we read the term “genetically altered,” we cringe and have to question whether it’s safe. As for the benefits, the article explains that by putting “frankenfoods” on the market we could see a decrease in the risks of mad cow disease and other problems in our natural foods.
ReplyDeleteOn page 279, Baran and Davis shared an interesting viewpoint on agenda setting. Walter Lippman argued that, “the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations.” This holds true for our vast food market and the way Americans eat today.
“Frankenfoods,” is not cleared to be on the market yet, and this one article coming from FOX news isn’t going to sway me either direction. The funny thing is that plenty of people out there are sitting in front of their computer screen reading this article while eating a highly-processed double cheeseburger, or a chicken breast infested with hormones. It's too soon to know what the long-term effects are for this so-called “frankenfood," but leave it to FOX news to get society rumbled up about it. Eat it if you must, but there are plenty of other fish in the sea for me.