This week the readings focused on media professionals and how they decide what goes into the news and what does not. The Baran and Davis chapter brings up a very interesting incident which happened at Virginia Tech University. The gunman from the Virginia Tech incident sent a video to NBC including videos and photos. NBC had the choice of whether or not to air the material and they decided to show seven photographs, thirty-seven sentences from a written screed, and two minutes of video (Baran & Davis 95). What do you think NBC should have done with the material that was sent to them by the gunman? Were they right in airing the footage? Did airing this material give possible ideas to other potential killers who may have seen the footage or could they be raising awareness?
The Rutgers University student suicide has been all over the news in the past week. The article in the link below is from the Fox News web site. This is just one of many articles that I read about this incident and I am sure everyone else has read or seen coverage on this incident on multiple occasions. Since many of us will be media professionals in the future, how do you feel different media texts handled this incident? Did they do a good job? Did they share too much person information or did they not share enough personal information? What would you do if you were given a release on a homosexual student’s suicide?
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/new_jersey/student-secretly-filmed-having-sex-reportedly-jumps-to-death-newscore-20100929
The text also discusses social responsibility theory which is pretty much the theory media in the US is guided by. The McQuail reading states this about the media, “In this process they must be concerned not only with aggregate preferences of society, but also with larger constructs of freedom for the social order-as well as for the individual” (McQuail 166).
Do you think it is up to the media to look out for public interest or should the media report a story which is going to raise their ratings? Take this hypothetical situation: You are a media professional and you receive a release that could potentially harm society in some way, but will definitely boost your ratings. What would you do?
Finally, the readings discuss the idea of the freedom of speech? Do you think the media should have a complete freedom of speech with no one controlling them? If not, do you think they should be completely controlled by some government organization? We have been alive for some extremely controversial issues like September 11, Hurricane Katrina, Virginia Tech, and more. How do you think media professionals have done in their coverage of these events?
I think the questions you pose regarding the coverage of Virginia Tech and what was “morally” right are really important questions and ones that to this day people still want answered. The reality is that it is the job of the news media to report these things to the public. Something of the severity like what happened that day is obviously something that is going to get media coverage and is something that we as the public have a right to know about-but where is the line drawn? When does it go from successfully doing your job for the public, to just trying to be individually successful within your job?
ReplyDeleteI think something that plays a big role in this is something mentioned in the McQuail reader. It’s stated that, “while the truism that the press should serve the public interest is accepted by nearly everyone, the satisfactory definition of that concept has proven much more difficult” (McQauil, 162). The fact that we can’t always define what is in the “public interest” makes it that much more difficult to determine if something should be aired. In the case of a campus shooting, I think it’s in the public’s interest to be made aware of what happened, but not in a way that would simply boost ratings. People’s family members were injured and killed, lives were altered, and then you have the media outlets posting the picture of this student on the front pages of papers like he’s a celebrity. Is that really in the public’s interest? Is going to the campus to get interviews while student’s are mourning and dealing with loss something that is absolutely vital? I don’t always think it is.
In terms of your hypothetical situation that you gave, I don’t think I would release information that could cause harm to someone just to raise my ratings. The job of the news media is to disseminate information and keep the public involved and aware of events that happen. I don’t think releasing something that could potentially hurt someone is worth your fifteen minutes of professional gain. In situations such as national tragedies, I think there should be some form of a regulation. Not to the extreme of first amendment absolutists who “believe in the strictest sense that media should be completely unregulated” (Baran, 99) or those of technocratic control who believe in “direct regulation of media, most often by government agency or commission” (Baran, 99), but there should be something. When something like Virginia Tech happens, it’s important for the media to remember that it is a tragedy, not just an opportunity to beat out competing networks or outlets. Some sort of regulation that enables them to report the news to the fullest extent because it is a national story and it obviously is going to impact a lot of people, but it should also be treated with a little humanity and respect as well.
Mike questioned whether it was ethical for the media to show so much detail in the coverage of the VA Tech shooting. In cases like this the media should be mindful of the fact that they are dealing with students, victims, and families in their most fragile state of being. There is a fine line between telling America what they need to know about a story and actually exploiting the people involved.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the VA Tech shooting, Baran & Davis wrote “To heighten the drama, all networks – broadcast and cable – repeatedly used on-screen graphics declaring the senseless murders a ‘massacre’ and a ‘bloodbath.’ This story didn’t need any sensationalism…but people are always looking for that extra rating point” (Baran & Davis 96). I think that this sensationalism was uncalled for and was clearly shown in hopes of getting higher ratings. Some news coverage did more than tell the people what they needed to know. It wasn’t just straight facts, they went overboard, exploiting the story and the people involved.
Audience researcher Robert Silvey wrote, “It is as though society says in effect to the public servant: ‘It is up to you to look after our interests. You must immerse yourself in your subject, because we haven’t time to do so. There may come times when we shall demand that you take a certain course which you, having weighed it in the light of your knowledge and experience, will tell us is not in fact in our interest’” (McQuail 166). I think this quote is saying that the audience wants the news reporters to sift through all of the info of that particular news story, and give us only the vital information. If it’s not of vital importance, then skip it -- Because we don’t have time for the stuff that doesn’t matter. We only want what is significant and noteworthy. In the example of the Virginia Tech case, I have mixed feelings. This was clearly a very difficult time for the students at VA Tech, those who were injured, and those who had family members who were injured. I think that it was probably unnecessary for the media to bombard them with so many questions and student interviews. On the other hand, while it was quite controversial…. I DO think that the reporters were in fact obligated to show us the shooter’s personal video footage. I believe that they were obligated because the footage was crucial to the story. It showed the shooter’s explanation of why he was unhappy and wanted to go on his horrific rampage. I think that for some VA Tech survivors, seeing the killer’s explanation on video may have helped some of them heal and reach closure.
The questions that Mike has posed are very relevant in today's society. As we have discussed in class, do news networks sensationalize stories simply for the ratings? In the case of Virginia Tech, I understand why NBC aired the footage. I think that we have to remember that media outlets are still businesses that need to make money---except in the case of news organizations money comes in the form of viewers and ratings, "In general, major newspapers and magazines became more audience-oriented. News was more interpretive; consumer, business, and lifestyle news competed with political news for space in newspapers and magazines" (McQuail Reader p.186). And to attain viewers and ratings, news media have to air what will shock and bring in the viewers---even if that means airing footage such as the stuff from Virginia Tech. The Baran and Davis reading explains it nicely, "According to the marketplace of ideas theory, the laissez-faire doctrine should be applied to mass media; that is, if ideas are "traded" freely among people, the correct or best ideas should prevail. The ideas compete, and the best will be "bought." (Baran and Davis p. 104).
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Rutgers student, I think that there has been too much media exposure on Tyler Clementi, and that it is time to let his family mourn in private. But I also feel as if it is due to the other recent suicides of homosexual individuals that has caused the media exposure. In the article that Mike posted, I do not think that there was too much information--it was pretty straightforward and included information that I have seen in most reports.
It is hard to say what I would do in the given situation that Mike posed. I did an internship with a local daily paper two summers ago, and I know firsthand that the more gripping the story is, the more likely that it will be published. If I was in charge of a newspaper then I would most likely publish the press release because the paper needs the readers. However, I would probably stick to basic facts on what occurred, and avoid speculation.
I also believe that the press should not be controlled, and that free speech is a right that should never be taken away. It is sad to admit that the journalism of years ago has changed from an art form to a business, but the reality is that readers/viewers and ratings drive the news industry.
For as long as I can remember people have questioned the media about what they either put on the news or don't put on the news. In reality, people will always want to see more and hear more. "Not only was it journalism, offered Capus, but in showing restraint in the airing of the images, writings, and video of the murder, NBC practiced good journalism. The airing was proper, said NBC's Capus." (Baran and Davis, 95)I do not blame NBC for putting this story on air because I think there was a lot of people who didn't know what was going on. This is relatable to the 9/11 story, and although both stories were extremely tragic, they both needed to be aired to the public. Like Robin said, I think that in the long run, this is a business and they had to make a crutial decision to possibly help ratings and also inform.
ReplyDeleteThe McQuail reader states, "by the very act of being free, the press operates in the public interest. However, as Barron points out, because freedom of the press belongs to all people the press is an issuer of communication, has no right to prevent the communication of others." To me this quote shows how important the press is to the people and they clearly have all the control on what is aired and what isn't. Decisions to cover the Virginia Tech shooter were certainly in the public interest, and personally I wanted to know as much about this as possible.
As far as the Tyler Clementi story goes, I think that it's hard to say whether or not there was too much coverage or whether there wasn't enough. This is another one of the controversial news stories that you need to cover because of the impact it could leave on the nation and addressing a critical problem about homosexuality in America. I think that the news coverage was very short and precise and they seem to have said just what needed to be mentioned.
It's hard to say whether or not the News outlets should have complete and total freedom of speech but I think it's safe to say that they already have a lot of control and bias to what is aired and what is said. I think that in everyone of those tragic and controversial stories like 9/11, Hurricane K, Virginia Tech, etc. if anything the media has done a great job in reporting. From all of those scenarios, the US has come out of everyone of them more unified and with a great feeling of togetherness. So I think that media outlets have done a good job in reporting these controversial issues and shouldn't change now.
Mike, you've posted some excellent conversation starters here. First of all, I'd like to answer your question regarding whether a news outlet should run a story that would harm society in some way, but would also boost their ratings. I think anyone who has ever taken a 100-level journalism class and is familiar with journalistic integrity would vote for ethics over ratings, but that is not to say that there aren't media outlets out there who may disagree. Fresh out of college, we, as journalists, would likely cling to our morals for dear life, but after some time in the real world, it isn't unlikely that our values will become overshadowed by the way of the world. What I find interesting is that, in chapter 5 of Baran and Davis, the guidelines of journalism are posed as questions rather than as facts (Baran & Davis 97-98). It asks what we would do, rather than telling us how journalism is supposed to be. This, I feel, is a danger to our society, for there is no standard that binds all news outlets together. As a result, the general public is left to decide for themselves what news is true, misleading, or biased. However, news outlets may reserve their right to not be regulated, for that would be "unconstitutional."
ReplyDeleteI, personally, would argue that some sort of regulation is necessary for news outlets, but unfortunately that is a dangerous, slippery slope. Firstly, there is no definition of the "public interest," which is touched upon in Chapter 13 of the McQuail reader. But secondly, awarding any outside source (especially a government agency) any sort of power over the media can be very dangerous. If an agency were in charge of gatekeeping, it defeats the purpose of journalists altogether, as journalists are supposed to be the "watchdogs of society." As a result, we find ourselves in an endless debate over what is newsworthy, what isn't, what is biased, and what is important. The fact is, these are opinions, and there is no way to factually determine one story's importance over another story's importance.
I believe Media Professionals tend to walk a very fine line when discussing things like suicide, or deciding whether or not to air parts of the package that the Virginia Tech Gunman had sent NBC. However, on page 114 of the Baran and Davis reader, one of McQuail's criteria for the social responsibility theory basically states that not only are the media free to cover whatever they want as long as it isn't breaking any laws. The criteria also states that media has the responsibly it to inform the public responsibly.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may seem a little overboard to some that the media is giving so much attention to the tragic suicide of the Rutgers teen, it is justifiable. In an age where cyberbullying is becoming more and more prevalent, maybe one of these stories will help a parent notice whats going on in their kid's life. Also, its not like the media outlets are reporting gruesome details of the suicide. Almost every report on it that I have seen has taken the stance of cyberbullying is becoming a very huge deal in our countries.
While it the media may have a Social Responsibility as to how they depict the new, I think not running stories because they are somewhat controversial would be the total opposite of any responsibility the media had. American isn't all sunshine and rainbows in the wake of giant tragedies like 9/11 or more localized tragedies like the Rutgers Suicide the news should report what happens, but maybe in a way that not only keeps us glued to the TV but maybe even how we as a society can better improve from the sad news the media needs to report.
I think this rehashes a classic debate in the world of journalism with some modern day examples. One thing that came to mind for me was a scene from the movie “Thirteen Days” which told the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In the movie the New York Times was planning to run a story the following morning concerning a matter of national security. President John F. Kennedy learned of this and personally called the editor of the Times and asked him to drop the story because it would put many American lives in danger. The disgruntled editor agreed to cooperate with the president’s wishes.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason this scene was the first thing that popped in my mind after I read Mike’s blog and the hypothetical question he posed concerning running a story that could possibly harm society. This also brings to mind the social responsibility theory which Baran and Davis define 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” (98). There definitely exists a fine line in this country between the freedom of the press in all matters of public interest but at the same time doing so ethically and with respect to all members of society that were affected. To answer Mike’s question I would tend to agree with the notion of avoiding running stories or showing video clips that could possibly harm members of society. Although all editors and producers want to run every story that could possibly earn ratings, I feel that the Times reporter in 1962 made the right decision in regarding the country’s security as more critical than the next day’s morning paper.
But as I mentioned before there is a fine line in this matter and I can completely understand the other side. McQuail details in chapter 13 that “activities by the press that drive out competition, encourage censorship, or prevent free discussion and debate on matters of public concern are at odds with the notion of positive freedom of the press” (167). When it comes to big news stories such as the Virginia Tech shootings and the recent suicide at Rutgers, I feel that news agencies and media outlets have a responsibility to their audience to report all of the facts as they receive them. With necessary respect and humility paid to the families of the victims, these organizations are competing amongst one another and can’t afford to slip behind. Basically the premise that the CBS News can’t afford to leave an important detail to a story out when NBC, ABC, CNN, and every other station decide to run with it. After all there is a very important business side to all of this.
Should a news station publish a story that could cause further corruption in society? I’m going to go with the obvious answer and say no. I feel as if journalists nowadays are reporting news without a filter. In McQuail, the media argue that they “operate in the public interest. This is a traditional view of the first amendment and is solidly grounded in the cases previously cited. It is, most commentators agree, a negative interpretation of the first amendment, focusing on the phrase, ‘Congress shall make no law,’ a command that has been interpreted as a shield against interference with the free flow of information. Clearly the interpretation favors the issuer of communication” (Dennis, 165). For instance, Mike, you used the Virginia Tech example. Don’t you think some people may be affected negatively by the excess information being released? These media “professionals” should start review some basic journalist ethics and hold back on information that may cause further harm in society instead of trying to beat another news station to the punch.
ReplyDeleteThe Virginia Tech example is great when considering what we’re talking about. “At around half past nine on the morning of April 16, 2007 a deranged young man gunned down two students in a dormitory at Virginia Tech University” (Baran & Davis, 95). On the day of coverage, both CBS and NBC News went all out to cover the story. Both news stations sent their best known anchors to the campus for the live report to increase the amount of viewers. Also in Baran & Davis, they tried to ‘sensationalize’ the story by using the words massacre, and blood bath (Baran & Davis, 96). It is the news stations job to present the news to the public. They are supposed to inform the public of what is happening around them. The use sensationalism in this story is not ethically correct. People had been murdered a few hours before their live newscast, and all the station can think about is how many more viewers they can get by having their best anchor doing a live broadcast on the campus. I feel as if journalists and news stations don’t show enough compassion when covering particular stories. It’s not about whether a news station can legally cover a particular story, but whether they should cover the story when considering their ethical values.
This entry raises a plethora of modern day sub-issues over the age old base issue of First Amendment media rights. What is freedom of speech/press? Should it be regulated? Who, if anyone, should regulate it? These questions have been uttered in the public sphere since the beginning of media. However, in the age of media professionalism we must now determine how these questions adapt to modern issues.
ReplyDeleteWhile I may not have come to terms with the radical title yet (I fear labels), most of my social and political views tend to lean towards the Libertarian persuasion. My view was essentially written for me in the Baran & Davis readings. One argument presented stated that "..media should be regarded as a self-regulating marketplace of ideas. This theory is a variation of the fundamental principle of capitalism- the notion of a self-regulating market," (Baran & Davis, 104). This provides verbalization to the idea that the media takes a pick-and-mix of the available selection of stories and determines which are most beneficial. In instances such as controversial issues (the cited Virginia tech shooting, Rutgers suicide, etc.) this can be interpreted many ways. The word beneficial implies benefit towards a certain party. We need to ask who the parties are that are involved in the exchange of ideas and information. Media's original purpose was to serve the public. It is to distribute information so that the public will be informed and aware of current happenings. In the Virginia Tech shooting, the media used discretion to show the public what it felt was needed. This is the whole concept behind a "self-regulating marketplace of ideas." These broadcasts being free of a government agency directly regulating news media content allows for the power to be placed in the hands of the media. In my personal opinion, this does not mean that media needs to think of every story in terms of public benefit and usefulness. Anyone who thinks such a benevolent practice occurs is blind to the cold reality: media is a business. It is more than coincidence that the marketplace of ideas theory derives from the free marketplace of capitalism. The media "purchases" these common ideas and markets them towards the viewers. Unfortunately, this means stories can be heavily selected based on rating potential. With controversial stories, I believe regulation is not so much the consideration of public good- but more of a business decision. If content is showed that horrifies viewers to the point of discontent, viewers will be lost. If viewers are lost, advertisers will drop. Finally, if advertisers drop, funding will dip and programming will cease. It is for this reason that I believe in a self-regulating marketplace of ideas- media will strive to never do something to hurt it's own interest. Due to the fact that media interest relies on viewers, this is loosely tied to public interest.
(continued below)
(continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteThe term public interest is thrown around quite frequently in our theory-based studies. However, what exactly does it mean? In the McQuail reader, it is stated that "...the public interest is much more than giving the public what it wants," (Dennis, 166). The entire news media industry is fueled by fulfilling public wants. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the news media business seems to be doing a fairly good job at keeping itself in existence. This fact alone implies that fulfilling public wants keeps the media afloat. So what is public interest? The combination of Dennis' explanation and the media trends today can cause one to insinuate that the public doesn't know what is in it's own best interest. Or, it is possible that we are aware of what's in our best interest, yet we do not desire it. If media is fulfilling a purpose that does not serve our best interest, yet we keep consuming it, what does that say about our moral fortitude? Do we settle for what we are provided hoping to remain under a shroud of media-selected comfort and safety? If NBC was to air the footage of Virginia Tech, it would surely cause an uproar amongst the public (most likely spearheaded by parents) and there would be a backlash against the media. The media provided the public with all available knowledge on a matter of danger. Is this not in our best interest to know the dangerous minds our society is culturing so that we may change our ways and begin to prevent repeat occurrences? Some will claim this provides incentive for copycat criminals and scars our children. Well who made NBC news the mother of our children and the role model of our deranged? If anything, such graphic information could serve as a wake-up call to parents who don't teach their kids before the media educates them in absence. It could also raise psychological issues within our society that need more attention. Is better our society and increasing our responsibility for ourselves not in the public interest?
Unfortunately, for now things will have to stay the way they are. As a society, we are not ready to take control of our own interests at such a radical pace. I wish I had a solution to the problem, but I can only imagine the plethora of issues associated with such a drastic shift in purpose. Hopefully we will live to be in that generation of change.
The media can kind of be a hit or miss in the views of some people. When you talked about what happened at Virginia Tech, i know if i was parent and my child was going there, i would want to know ALL the details of what's happening and I'm sure I will not be the only parent who is feeling that way. In this type of incident the media need to let the public know whats going on period.
ReplyDelete"The media should scan the social world and alert the public to problems" (Baran, Davis 108). They are suppose to be professionals, I do not think they should show stories for ratings but for the interest of the public. Every news outlet will slant and add their lil twist to a story especially in this day and time.
I think the media should have freedom of speech but to a certain extent. In chapt 14 McQuail says "Freedom of the press, in other words, is an instrumental good: It is good if it does certain things." As long as the media do not get out of hand then I think that will be fine.
With Hurricane Katrina some media outlets talked about the wrong things. It was kind of disturbing when they were saying people were looting because some of my close friends are from NO and was there and I know for a fact they were just trying to survive and look out for their families.
In today's society, it is a difficult world to be a journalist. There are constantly stories of controversial issues/ happenings, and especially with som uch of the public connected to the television and internet, it puts the coverage of the stories under much pressure. Just like anything else in life, whatever you do is going to have consequences. There are going to be people that agree with your decision, and people that disagree with your decision. it is your job to base you decision on what is best for you. Now, when talking about News outlets, we are talking about something totally different. If News outlets made decisions solely on the basis of what is right for them, then they would totally disregard what is ethically/ morally right and what is in the best public interest and cover stories in anyway that would bring in the most viewers/ business. I agree with previous posts on that NBC News, just like any other news outlet, is a business. In order to keep their jobs, they have to do their job; cover the news.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the VA Tech tragedy, they had to cover the story. Not only to do their job, but I feel it is in the public's interest to be made aware of what is happening in our country/ in our universities. However, I do feel there is a thin line between good coverage/ over doing it. I'm not a professional in anyway so I'm not going to say they did their job in a bad way, but there are some points I would agree on for both sides. On one hand, yes they have to cover the story. I think since the killer sent the videos to NBC, they felt obligated to show the footage. I can only imagine how much credibility/ criticism the company would be under if if was known that they had actual footage and did not release it. I think it is a tough call on what to cover and exactly how to cover a controversial story. On the other hand, in the Baran and Davis reading, media critic Todd Gitlin was quoted, saying "And in a world saturated with media, a great killer must also be a famous killer. Notoriety is immortality. So to complete his glorious task, he turns to his accomplices-the media...The broadcasters do not share the killer's purpose, exactly, but they serve it" (Baran, Davis, 96). I think this quote has some truth to it. Think about it, why would the killer send the video to a big time News outlet? Isn't airing his video, even if it was only 2 minutes (which in my opinion is still a long time), giving him what he wanted? Making him famous in the exact way that he wanted to be remembered in?
As far as the Rutgers tragedy, and based on the article that was posted by Mike as an example, I don't think there was anything wrong in the coverage. Like I said, yes they need to do the coverage in order to raise awareness no matter how difficult the circumstances, and I don't think they over did it. They informed the public of what happened, they showed the victim in a positive light (in my eyes), and they were sensitive to the story.
Mike brings up very interesting points here because as media consumers, we should be concerned with the messages media professionals send out to the public. At the same time, the media professionals have to make the decision whether it is appropriate for the audience to be exposed to certain things. In the case of the Virginia Tech incident I think that NBC should have censored the story more and been more careful with the information they were transmitting to the audience. They should have taken into consideration the people who were involved in the situation directly or indirectly. While I think that the media should have been more careful with what they aired in regards to the Virginia Tech story at the same time I think that news outlets have the obligation to serve the public. The Baran and Davis readings for this week have a very interesting point in relations to this. Baran and Davis discuss Siebert, Paterson, and Schramm’s Theory social responsibility theory of the press. In this theory Siebert, Paterson, and Schramm assert, “The most innovative feature of social responsibility theory was its call for media to be responsible for the fostering productive and creative ‘Great Communities.’” They also move on to state, “…media should do this by prioritizing the cultural pluralism-by becoming the voice of all the people-not just the elite group…” (Baran and Davis 114). With this in mind, the job of the news professional is to transmit to the public the messages accurately. Furthermore the McQuail readings for this emphasize that just the fact that the press is free in this country, gives the consumers the notion that the press is acting in their interest (McQuail 167). In regards to the media professionals taking a closer look at the messages, they send the public. I believe there are, certain situations that should be censored taking into consideration the people who are being affected by the occurrence.
ReplyDeleteIf it was up to me to either air this story or pull it from the agenda, I would make sure to have the Tyler Clementi story aired. As it states in McQuail, “All our interests in free speech have an important social and even a public component” (McQuail, 179). This is a story that needed to be relayed to the public. This story does indeed have “an important social…and public component” in the sense that there could be people who might have thought that taping their roommates or invading another person’s property was a good idea. Since the coverage of this story has been so thorough and popular, many people have been educated on the fact that invasion of privacy is wrong and that it can lead to extreme situations such as suicide.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is a story of public interest, it would be a completely different story if the Clementi had not committed suicide. In this situation, I am recalling the prompted question, “You are a media professional and you receive a release that could potentially harm society in some way, but will definitely boost your ratings. What would you do?”. I certainly would not air this story because it would expose a person in a situation who could possibly endanger him or her. This makes me think though. What about when celebrities have sex tapes released of them? Then I remember, that those people knew they were being filmed whereas in the Clementi case, the subject did not know he was being filmed and his privacy was indeed invaded.
This main post does hone in on a good point about coverage of an issue. The concern of whether or not the news will contribute to the negativity in society when broadcasting a story such as the Virgina Tech shootings. As stated in Baran and Davis, the news story on these attacks, had “visuals, all featuring the angry, gun- and knife- wielding murderer” (B&D, 95). Ultimately, the news source’s agenda is not to spread the news of these crimes in the hopes that more people will go out and commit them. I think that news coverage on issues like this are handled very carefully and work to benefit society in an efficient way.
According to Baran, Davis "The media should scan the social world and alert the public to problems". In regards to the Virginia Tech incident I think that the media had themselves in a little bit of a predicament. I think that the media did their job by showing the video of the gunman. I understand your point of maybe showing other people how he went about committing his crimes but he also showed how others can be a little safer about things going on around campus. There are definitely more sane people out there that are now safer because of this then there are psychos going around learning new ways to kill people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evann Baker when he said that if he was a parent he would want to know all the details of what was happening. . In chapter 14 McQuail says "Freedom of the press, in other words, is an instrumental good: It is good if it does certain things." I couldn’t agree more with this statement. The only problem I have with it is that people can virtually say whatever they want in media and alter some peoples points of view by sharing false information.
The Tyler Clementi story in my opinion was covered pretty decently. This is a very sensitive subject especially in America these days. Depending on how this story was told it could have left many people scared and always paranoid of people around them that they thought were their friends. It was definitely a story that was well done because of the high potential level of sensitivity.
Kieran Wheeler
ReplyDeleteThere is no question that television news definitely shows some graphic images and shares personal information within some of the stories that they decide to televise. It is definitely hard to say whether or not the media should share some of the graphic and personal information that they do when it comes to certain issues. If there are factors of a story that are omitted because they might be too graphic in their nature, then the story could possibly lose some of its credibility, and that is the last thing that a media outlet needs. When it comes down to it, different news outlets are in a competition against one another, and it really is all about ratings. If FOX news was constantly going to provide more information than other news outlets, as graphic as that information may be, then that could cause viewers to continue to watch FOX news as it would make them more informed about different subjects than those who are using other news sources that omit certain details. In my opinion, it is important for the news to show everything that they can about a story because it helps the audience grasp the reality of the story, and better understand the truth.
In the Baran and Davis reading, it says, “When we buy a newspaper, we don’t buy individual articles; we buy packages. We can choose to ignore anything in the package that we find offensive” (104). The same goes for any type of medium. If there is going to be something graphic or offensive on television news, then there will usually be a warning, and we can choose not to watch it. However, others may feel that watching it helps them to better understand the story, and this is why the news should show this information. With regards to the Virginia Tech story, I do not think that airing footage and letters from the gunman would give other people ideas. If anything, all of the violent movies and video games out there could give people bad ideas- not the news.
The government should definitely not be able to regulate what the media is able to show, because then we would never be certain that we were being given truthful information. In Chapter 13 of the McQuail reading, it states, “In American society the Constitution is the ultimate statement of the public interest. Thus, a free press is a means by which the public interest is transmitted and eventually achieved” (166).
As for the coverage of things such as Katrina and 9/11, the news was definitely graphic about these topics. Being born and raised in lower Manhattan, and having a father that worked as a Port Authority Detective at the Trade Center, it was definitely hard for me to watch things in the news about 9/11. However, it all goes back to news as a “package.” I did not have to watch the graphic things about 9/11, but now that I did I am much more informed.