Please check out this article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/30/national/main6913514.shtmland
And this blog http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-conlon/what-can-we-learn-from-ty_b_747057.html
The media is changing and evolving everyday. With the invention of Web 2.0, ordinary people can post their thoughts on the Internet and receive feedback almost instantly. The Internet is one of the greatest inventions of our time and as college students, we have grown accustomed to using the Internet daily.
When one reads the newspaper and chooses to read an article (not an editorial or opinion piece), one expects to read the hard-hitting facts. Although newspapers are supposed to remain objective, we have learned that it is basically impossible to do so. According to Baran and Davis, some media practitioners believe that the media should be a “market-place of ideas”. Baran and Davis state, “In Libertarianism, the notion that all ideas should be put before the public, and the public will choose the best from that ‘marketplace,’” (Baran and Davis 104). This can be proven in regards to the variety of opinions and media outlets that are available on the Internet today.
This weekend, the media has spent quite a bit of time covering the suicide of Tyler Clementi. I have watched the news and read numerous stories about this incident and it is truly a saddening story. After reading several news articles, such as the article posted above, I began to question the role of media professionalism in today’s society. I found it informative to go to websites such as CBS News and the New York Times to read articles and get the most information as I could about this particular incident, but I also found it interesting to read editorials and blogs where people were able to express their own opinions and emotions. While reading some of the blogs, I did however question which blogs seemed to provide facts, and which blogs expressed different opinions than the ones I have. I think it is great that the Internet allows people to post comments and provide feedback, but at times, should there be limitations of free press or a check and balance system?
There are several factors that contribute to what will be aired on the channels of mass communications such as “New organizations are driven economically to capture the largest possible audience, and thus not to turn it off with whatever does turn it off-coverage that is too controversial, too demanding, too disturbing,” (McQuail 173). This being said, the Internet is a great place for people to express their own opinions and emotions, even if they may seem to extreme, since some media outlets may prefer to stick to one side of a story.
Overall, how do you think the Internet has changed media professionalism over time? Did you gain anything out of reading the blog regarding Tyler Clementi’s death that expressed the author’s thoughts about what we can learn, rather than the news article? How to you feel about blogging? Are blogs credible at all?
In the Baran and Davis chapter, they talked about the Marketplace of Ideas. They said that “an open and competitive marketplace should regulate itself. If a product is in high demand, prices will naturally rise as consumers compete to buy it.” It is supposed to work like this: Someone comes up with a good idea and then transmits it through some form of mass communication. If other people like it, they buy the message. However, I don’t think the marketplace of ideas works as fairly as intended. With agenda setting, gatekeeping, and framing for example, the media is attempting to control our thoughts and decisions, therefore trying to have us “buy” what they are offering in the marketplace. It is all a competition to get the most “customers” and most of the time they don’t exactly play fairly. The internet allows us to tailor our specific interests and search for information we desire, but how do we know what’s being said is true? I think that blogging is a great way to be able to express your personal opinions and thoughts, but when it comes down to obtaining facts and information I don’t think it’s credible. Anyone can post a blog. You never know who is writing it, and therefore you can’t trust everything that is being said. I think that blogs are a great way to express yourself, and Stephanie finding blogs that were dedicated to a friend that had passed is a great example. But I do not think that information should be posted on blogs unless there is proof that what is being said is completely accurate and from a legitimate source.
ReplyDeleteMcQuail talked about the social responsibility theory. He noted that the definition and presentation of news evolved, into a notion known as responsible journalism. News became based on “fairness and balance coupled with a more objective writing style came to be accepted as the rule instead of fiery opinion and rhetoric.” However, blogs are an outlet that let people express their opinion about topics which I believe is important. Hearing what other people have to say about a topic allows you to see all sides to a story and therefore be able to truly choose your beliefs. In the news they present stories how they want viewers to perceive things, therefore they are choosing your beliefs and thoughts for you. When I watch the news, I will listen to the facts but not the way that stories are portrayed. Facts and information should always come from a credible source or else it could be wrong. Blogs are important when it comes to discussion and expression, but not completely trustworthy when it comes to facts since you cannot prove that someone reliable wrote them.
Having social responsibility guide most media operations in the U.S seems to be a problem in some areas. I am totally for freedom of expression and being able to say how you feel, but in some cases it can lead to negative consequences. I remember watching a film that showed a girl looking up tips on the internet about how to be anorexic. It is crazy how many blogs and websites are devoted to teaching people how to have an eating disorder and how to live with it. Blogs and websites such as this are taking their rights too far and should be penalized. If they are dishing out unhealthy and harmful advice that will impact someone in a negative way it should not be there. Cases such as this are the only things that make expressing yourself on the internet possibly detrimental and can be a bad influence on others. Therefore, I believe that blogs need to be monitored to a certain extent.
When I first thought of how I would answer Stephanie's question of whether or not there should be limitations on the Internet, I thought no, of course not! But then I remembered the existence of pro-ana websites and I quickly changed my mind. I then noticed that Heather brought up these pro-anorexia sites. I do not see one positive implication that could come from such a website, therefore I firmly believe that in a case such as this, there should definitely be limitations. Any source that encourages or inspires self-harm or harm to others should never be allowed in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteGetting back on track however, blogs can be a great way for everyday people to express themselves and share a plethora of information with the Internet world. I find some of the users on YouTube to be extraordinarily talented at producing their own material. The Internet is a great outlet that is accessible to ‘normal people’. I think the Internet is also a way to fill in the gaps that corporate news outlets might leave out. There is a wide range of opinions and beliefs on the web, which gives us an audience a vast source of information that we can seek out if we so choose. As stated in the Baran and Davis reading, the term “marketplace of ideas” refers to “the notion that all ideas should be put before the public, and the public will choose the best from that ‘marketplace’”. In previous blogs, I have suggested essentially the same idea, but as we know media outlets will more often than not provide their own slant and selectively choose which stories to focus on. I could not have articulated the process of news selection and expression better than Judith Lichtenberg did in her article published in the McQuail reader, “More often than not, contemporary news organizations belong to large corporations whose interests influence what gets covered and how… The media are easily manipulated by government officials…” She has many great points in her article about the exclusions of mainstream media. This brings us back to the notion of a marketplace of ideas as discussed in Nerone’s article in the McQuail reader, “…where media previously competed in the marketplace, now the marketplace is contained within the media.”
All in all, I believe that the Internet is a helpful addition to the professional media world. While news sources [should] generally provide the facts, the Internet provides an outlet for public discourse. This opens the opportunity for constructive posts such as the blog that Stephanie listed.
When I first started thinking about blogs, I thought to myself that I really didn’t care about them; I don’t like to read them and I don’t like to write them, but if anyone else feels like they want to then I guess it is good there is a place out there on the internet where people can share ideas. Then, when I read Stephanie’s article and blog she found, I suddenly realized there was a lot more to blogs than just simply another marketplace for ideas, as discussed in chapter five of Baron and Davis. I realized I do not agree with this idea of the marketplace because it makes too many assumptions to be credible. It assumes that “good” ideas will triumph and be “bought” over “evil” ideas. I don’t think this theory holds any credit anymore because of the invention of the internet, as well as the fact that money often plays a large role in what we see and read. There is just so much information being put out there, and so many people are able to share their ideas that there is no longer that central news media providing facts, however slanted they might be. I think it is good for people to share opinions and discuss, since that is part of democracy, as discussed on page 192 of McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, but that people realize blogs are not credible sources and they should not ignore the news outlets. This reminded me of something that is happening right now in Michigan. The University of Michigan’s student body president, Chris Armstrong, is openly homosexual, and is now being blatantly harassed by Michigan’s own Assistant Attorney General, Andrew Shirvell. Shirvell has created a blog all about Armstrong and he claims there is a radical homosexual agenda, and has gone as far as to harass his family and video tape him, calling him “Nazi-like.” Now, we can all see that Shirvell is radical himself, as well as ignorant and disrespectful of not only Armstrong but to the entire gay community, but there are many people out there who would agree with his views. It is not fair to Armstrong that he is not only being harassed in person or online, but that Shirvell could possibly be creating a larger force against him by use of the internet and his sensationalizing. Michigan’s Atourney General, Mike Cox, does not agree with Shirvell and his actions but unfortunately can do nothing about it, since he is protected under the first amendment. When I heard about this story it only deepened my dislike for blogs. In some contexts it could be beneficial to have them in order to have a healthy debate over meaningful issues, but they can so easily be misused, such as in the Armstrong case and in the anorexia cases talked about above. In this sense, I think that blogs should be regulated somehow, but how to do this I’m not sure, I just know it would be extremely difficult because of the nature of the internet and citizen’s first amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteBlogs are utilized on the Internet as an outlet to express oneself. Comparing the CBS electronic article to Huntington on the story of the Tyler Clementi tragedy, the two forms of writing are drastically different. The CBS web article is strictly informative covering all the formal details that are available at this point in time while the blog post has a theme of trying to understand the event and being a platform for the need to change.
ReplyDeleteIn the Baran and Dennis readings they explained that, historically, the competing media venues in the era of yellow journalism were where media professionalism first developed. Newspapers at that time were formed from frustrated citizens that felt their news was not covered in the right light; or as we would say, as media professionals, "in the right frame." I believe that blogs are the digital version of this cycle of media coverage frustration. They should never be considered as formal sources because of their lack of credibility. Though they do have the power like many media outlets to influence readers to look at a topic a certain way. Blogs are digital journals where people go to express themselves. It can be refreshing at times to hear the point of view of an individual rather than the heavy format of a newspaper article. The short blog post took more of a meaningful message than that of the formal CBS article. Also, most people would not have stayed until the last sentence due to the length of the newspaper article. Blogs are a quick resource to get the point of views of individuals rather than the frame in which media outlets push on us to see.
The McQuail texts, states that social responsibility requires a multitude of different sources to preserve a check and balance system within the media; blogs take on that task. The blog that was presented as an example is posted under a credible name but the structure, writing style, and the information presented does not freely allow readers to form an opinion. Blogs are just a source of expression, not a news source.
I'm actually going to be going into this idea in depth in my presentation this week, so I'll try to comment without spoiling too much.
ReplyDeleteI don't think blogs should be completely discounted as credible news sources, I just think that, on certain sites, the distinction between "blog" and "news site" must be made explicitly clear. Until I started doing research for my discussion questions, I didn't even know that the Huffington Post was a blog. I just assumed it was an online newspaper.
Looking at these two articles, there's a clear difference in the language used. Peggy Conlon's article is obviously much more emotionally charged, particularly through the use of lines like "This is staggering. And unacceptable." Were Conlon writing for a traditional news source, starting a sentence with "and" would indeed be unacceptable, as would injecting so much personal opinion into a news story.
While I don't think Conlon is personally trying to fool anyone into thinking she's writing a news story, the layout of the site makes it difficult to decipher exactly what type of story it is at first glance. Most news websites have their opinion pieces clearly labeled, but such is not the case on the Huffington Post. I don't know if they expect their readers to go to the site knowing it's an overgrown blog, but they should probably make that distinction clearer.
I don't think the Huffington Post is any sort of leech on traditional journalism; it's merely seeing the current media trends and capitalizing on them. A website full of opinion pieces is all good and well, but they should be concerned with whether or not their readers are informed and aware that what they are reading has been put through another person's lens.
I think it was mentioned in another comment, and again, I'll be touching on this on Thursday, but blogs nicely constitute the normative theory of the marketplace of ideas. Anyone can write a story, anyone can comment on that story, and anyone can engage in a discourse via those comments. It's just a matter of whether or not the self-righting principle will apply and if the truth will win out in the end. But, then again, what really is the truth?
To answer your question if media professionalism has changed over time, I would have to say I believe it has because the true journalists are not the only ones responsible for a professional demeanor on the internet, especially those who want their writing to be taken seriously. In Tyler Clementi’s case, it was not only live video, but his roommate also posted onto his Twitter account that his “roommate asked for the room until midnight,” and continued saying he saw him making out with another man. This is just one example of the vast affect media has. Everything is one-click away from going global. News stations frantically look for facts on top stories and scramble to be the first to release them. There is something about the rapid and seemingly rushed release of stories today that takes away from media being proficient and professional. However, the main issue goes beyond communication freedom and is a question of fundamental human rights and how to make the best use of them at our point and time in media.
ReplyDeleteAmong the normative theories introduced in Baran and Davis’s chapter, social responsibility theory was one that stuck out. Social responsibility theory is defined as, “a normative theory that substitutes media industry and public responsibility for total media freedom on the one hand and for external control on the other,” (Baran and Davis 98). I don’t have anything against blogging because it’s a means of escape for some individuals. Some bloggers are also using the internet not just for themselves, but for others who need(ed) help like Peggy Conlon’s blog posted above. However, plenty of blog readers are prone to believe whatever they hear and whatever they read without doing their own research and finding out the hard facts.
I will not say that filters should be in place on the information on the internet. Completely monitoring the vastness of the internet would be an impossible feat and would surely stir up some protests concerning our first amendment rights. I remember in QU301, we had a project to research a particular minority group on the internet. We were told to look at white supremacist pages. What I read on some of these websites was horrifying, but with any revolutionary technological advance comes negative repercussions. In the case of Clementi, instantaneous access to the internet allowed his roommates to post that video. But I do not feel that the internet should be blamed for Clementi’s death. This was a sick joke that is so rare that the internet cannot be blamed—the only people who can be blamed are those involved in the prank.
ReplyDeleteJournalists and bloggers have the power to inform. The US needs to know that this tragedy occurred, so we can take steps to prevent it from occurring in the future. The newspapers and other media do have to report the facts of the case, which are necessary to our understanding. What can bloggers do? In today’s technology age, many bloggers have grown as opinion leaders. With so many reading and absorbing their opinion, I do consider it their duty to write progressive, helpful information to deliver to their audience. In the article by Judith Lichtenberg in the McQuail Reader, she states, “All our interests in free speech have an important social and even public component...a certain quantity and diversity of speech must exist and be heard—a multiplicity of voices...because thinking for oneself is not a matter of coming up with wholly original ideas but rather of subject one’s ideas, which come largely from others, to certain tests” (179). Blogs have delivered this quantity and diversity of free speech to the audience. There are no higher gatekeepers in the way of delivering the bloggers’ views and opinions and they give us an outlook on the world through the eyes of someone whose thoughts are not blocked by media regulations. Blogs have presented us with a way to engage in public forum, express our opinions freely and instantly and gain new insight and opinion based on what we read.
Blogs have grown to be a very influential outlet and they can provide us with some very necessary information. Perhaps what we really need as Americans now is not so much opinion on what a tragedy this case was (because we know that already), but instead, for bloggers to inform us on what we can do to help those who are victims of bullying. It would be more progressive and efficient to make these helpful outlets more prominent and readily available on the internet than it would be to just blog about what a tragedy this story is. The issue is not that we need to educate college students that bullying is bad—we know that already. Those kids are prejudiced. They are not just bullies. We need to educate those who are in pain on where they can go to seek help. The media and blogs can be spreaders of the word.
What makes blogs different from traditional journalism (and thus, can be much more influential than traditional journalism) is that bloggers “add value to the news by reflecting on and raising questions about it. Much of what they write is highly speculative and reflects their values. They make no effort to be objective...” (111). Bloggers are able to share their opinions and values with the vast internet audience. These influential bloggers (like the one you shared with us) have the power to spark change in the communities. They could inspire a group to rise together and provide more counseling services, suicide hotlines and support forums and groups. Perhaps this tragedy happened because Clementi felt there was no one who was going through what he was going through. Perhaps he felt alone in his grief when, in reality, there are community members he could have leaned on—if only he knew where to look. Bloggers can raise these questions and inspire change.
To find an article in a newspaper today that is pure fact and no fluff is very hard to do. I think this is because journalism has changed from the hard hitting fact stories to a more clear sense of what voice the writer has. In my opinion, people may actually prefer a news story that has an opinion to it because now that there are so many news sources avaiable to them, the readers have the option to read news from whomever they choice. Now it is more commonly known which news source will have what kind of opinions and what kind of stories will be available. For example, those who turn to Fox News are looking for that conservative agenda, and those who look to MSNBC are interested in a more liberal news source.
ReplyDeleteThe question of Internet credibility to me is actually simple, when a person is reading news off of the internet, it should be known that this source may not be as credible as say, The New York Times. With so many different news sources and so many different readers, the general public understands what news they're following and trusting. Baran and Davis touched upon the 'Marketplace of Ideas' which is easy to understand but difficult to trust. Within this marketplace of ideas, B and D talk about how certain ideas (products) value will rise depending on how many people buy that idea. It's a dangerous marketplace because of this 'rising value' depending on how many people buy that idea. For example, the marketplace of ideas was so heavily influenced by the media in times of terror because the public was so in need of any answer that the news source to come up with the 'best' idea at the time was immediately credited with the 'right' idea. This is so difficult to trust because it ends up being immature and more of a system based on taking sides, like in dodgeball.
The internet is a hard thing to regulate in the sense of being a news source because internet is so available, and so easy to change at a moment's notice. It is for thi reason that easy learning sites like Wikipedia are widely known for not being a reliable source, because anyone who goes on the site can change the information. I think that instead of trying to set rules and regulations on something that will never be restrained, it just needs to become public knowledge that unless it is written by a credible news source that has other media outreaches, it is probably not going to give you the most trustworthy news.
The blog is still a very foreign aspect of "the news" to me. For a while blogs were labeled as diaries, opinions and too personal. However with the broad reach of consumers, blogs purposes have undoubtedly expanded. In class we have argued the difference between public need and public interest, such as our classes discussion of the Delta emergency landing vs Southwest's Airtran take over.
ReplyDeleteTyler Clementi's suicide definitely fit in both categories, which many times makes it easier on the news's spotlight. My question would then be, do those factors influence the news's portrayal? In chapter 13 of McQuail he highlights Walter Lippmann's comment that "the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently"(163). A blog may be described as the exact opposite, and for that reason I think it's all the more important.
While the argument over which is more beneficial and legitimate exists, I will not agree with any answer. I appreciate voice. In some cases I feel a blog is the better option, and will soon be recognized as a part of the news rather than an opponent. Recently, I researched The Pew Forum's study of religion in America. The study focused on religious ignorance and knowledge. When researching, it was both new and noticeable to see that all articles were in the "blog" section of the news. This included Fox and CNN. Sections on "Belief" were left to blog to avoid liability, but many times the "blogger" had a similar voice to that of the news network.
I feel in the future, and as networks grow farther apart, blogs will be incorporated for those who are looking for a deeper connection and interest level with networks. They will become a news staple.