Media Professionals

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?

The Professionals Responsibility

http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2010/09/media_responsibility_and_hivaids.php

Media surrounds us. There is no escaping it. However, what the media chooses to report and expose to the public is their choice, which can lead to a few ethical debates. What exactly is the medias responsibility? When does the media "cross a line"? As Baran and Davis ask, "think about your views concerning the role of media for yourself, your community, your state, your nation, and your world. What are the most important things that media should and shouldn't do? What standards of behavior should media practitioners follow as they perform these tasks?" (Baron and Davis, 98). Are there any real answers to these questions? In the article I have posted, Jimmy Kolker "commends" the medias current coverage on HIV and AIDS, yet "pleads" with the them to "remember confidentiality ethics when reporting". Kolker goes on to say, "The boundaries are in respecting the health, dignity and personal decisions of those affected." While I personally agree with what Kolker is saying, not all media professionals have the same outlook. It seems that the more the media can "expose" the greater the shock factor and the more in depth the story. This is where I feel both the normative and social responsibility theories come into play. In these theories however, there are no real answers to any of the questions, just a matter of moral opinion. It is up to us as future professionals in this industry to decide what is ethical and moral in the stories we report on.

Media Professionalism: News Articles vs. Internet Blogs

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?

Parody as a Framing Tool

Often our generation is criticized for obtaining the majority of of news information from comedy shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. While these shows are occasionally ridiculous (more Colbert in my opinion) and aired for their comedic value, they do draw from real-life news and current events for their material. Below is a link to a fairly well publicized skit from The Daily Show parodying Glenn Beck's style of journalism on his FOX News show. The clip is taken directly from Countdown with Keith Olbermann who is reporting on the controversial routine. Have a look before reading on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNOku6QP4UM&feature=related

Glenn Beck's reporting style is unique indeed and (leaving my personal opinions out of this) arguably more open to parody than some other broadcast figures. However, I would like to examine the act of parody itself in terms of media framing. Framing is the process, both voluntary and involuntary, by which certain aspects of texts and categories of texts as a whole become more prominent through selection and broadcasting. News stories will frame certain issues and certain aspects about stories every day. For example, the whole concept of a "mean world" expectation from people comes form the media reporting only violent and negative stories or highlighting aspects such as death and destruction in other stories. The Middle East is a topic in particular comes to my mind when thinking of news framing. But I digress.

In the Baran and Davis readings, the concept of formed expectations comes into play. It is states that "Expectations are often associated with and can arouse strong emotions such as hate, fear, or love," (Baran & Davis, 315). These expectations are what interact with potential framing displayed by the media and media texts. Comedy routines such as those on The Daily Show engage in framing of their own. The parody style in these shows takes the small quips and unique behaviors/flaws of an individual or story and puts them front and center. The end product of such a framing exercise is ultimately suppose to be laughter or comedic value. In reference to the expectations discusses in Baran & Davis, I would like to propose that laughter and entertainment are also an emotion that can unconsciously cause certain opinions to occur with these shows. Considering our generation reports that a majority of our news digestion comes from these shows is a perfect example. We go in to such a program expecting comedy and laughter. However when the issues that are poked at are brought up in discussion, students will report that they heard about such a thing on The Daily Show. Hence, the only side of the issue they are aware of is the extremities framed and promoted by the comedy routines such as the clip provided.

However, we cannot neglect the fact that we are functional, thinking, human beings. Framing does not imply that we believe everything we hear from the media. In the Entmann reading, it is stated that "Because salience is a product of the interaction of texts and receivers, the presence of frames in the text, as detected by researchers, does not guarantee their influence in audience thinking," (Enmann, 53). When information is delivered through the media to a reciever, it is then interpreted by that receiver. This is to say that not all things stated on the news are taken at face value. Through this interpretation opinions are formed and the promoted view from the media can be accepted, rejected, or compromised with. With parody shows, certain issues are framed under a certain (usually extremely critical) light. While viewers look to the show for emotional satisfaction through comedic value, the issues are still real and are being portrayed in a certain light. Even in the YouTube clip the routine is being discussed and analyzed on another news program.

The questions that I want to propose through this analysis of parody concern our generation particularly. While independent research and opinion formation can be done, it is a question of apathy with college students. At Quinnipiac specifically, do you think the majority of students take the extreme parody of such shows at face value or a point of research? While most students will admit they learn current events from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, I am more interested in their subsequently formed opinions on the issues at hand. Do you believe these shows form a majority opinion with its college-age viewers? Do you find yourself drawing opinions that coincide with the comedy skits of parody news shows? Parody is a very cloudy frame indeed, but our generation is a petri dish for the cultivation new opinions and influences and these shows appear to be the catalyst.

Hard News vs. Soft News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIyyE_PGATA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkm5KLDD5fc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B5rdJOFEGs

After reading Gaye Tuchman’s theories about the types of news that the newsworkers’ try to cover I went to WTNH’s YouTube page, and pulled out the first five videos that I found and decided to classify them and see what type of news they actually are.

Tuchman describes five different types of news. Hard news and soft news are the two primary types of news. Hard news is “news information people should have to be informed citizens and soft news concerns human foibles and the ‘texture of our human life’. So are the stories that WTNH covers news that are vital to human life.

Three of the five stories that I found involved shootings in the New Haven area. While these stories are indeed unfortunate and need to be covered, I would not classify them as necessarily hard news. Shootings happen every day and knowing about every shooting in Connecticut isn’t going to decide whether I am an “informed citizen” or not. Tuchman classifies these news stories as spot news, which are things such as robberies, murders, fires etc. She also claims that this is a subclassification of hard news. I tend to disagree with this notion on the basis of her previous definitions. Knowing about fires and murders I feel like are actually more soft news than hard news, as they don’t affect the mass audience that WTNH is trying to go to, and instead it seems like they are more focused on trying to sensationalize the story and get the best shot of the fire, or the best interview with a witness, so that they can say they have the best coverage.

In the Baran and Davis readings, they talk about a form of journalism called “explanatory journalism”. This is a type of journalism which explains why events and statements described by conventional journalists take place. I don’t see enough of this going on in local news. It seems that they are quick to report the news and get the best shots and interviews that they can. But they fail to explain why this news is important and why it affects me. My question is do you think that enough hard news, and information that “people should have to be informed citizens” is covered enough by the media, especially by local news broadcasts?

Framing in Media

Since as far back as I can remember the media has been trying to impose certain stereotypes into our minds in almost all forms of media from commercials to movies. I’m sure you all have seen a commercial or can even think of a specific commercial that does this. Right off the top of my head I can tell you that women are portrayed as delicate, sensitive, and domesticated while men are portrayed as strong, aggressive and assertive. Because of this it made it easy for me to find the perfect video to demonstrate this and I’m sure you have also seen it before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIutgtzwhAc&feature=fvst

Robert Entmann defines framing as “selecting aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in which such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.” In this case men are being portrayed as obsessive of beer in a bit of a feminine way. In a more stereotypical commercial one might see them men in the beer closet watching a football game or eating a large steak or something. Do you think that this commercial was more taking a shot at how women usually act or do you think they did not even think of that part of it? Most sensible people can see that this is just supposed to be a funny commercial and not how men really are and probably would not have any adverse affects on men who watch it but there are definitely other similar commercials that do affect the issue of framing.

The example of the beer commercial is typical in the way that there are almost no commercials featuring women as the beer representative besides maybe the bud light lime ones. In my experience I found that men are the usual beer drinkers and women prefer a mixed drink with a little better flavor to it. Do you think that these commercials or advertisements have anything to do with that?

I was never so aware of framing and media influence until becoming a media studies major but now that I have been shown these things it is hard not to notice them. Because of this I noticed how the women in the commercial were portrayed. They were all excited over a large closet with lots of clothes and shoes. Do you think the writers of the advertisement did this on purpose or do you think it was just supposed to be funny about how the men reacted?

Can you think of any beer commercials that do not directly focus on men? If so, why do you think they went with women in the commercial instead of men? After hearing what Erving Goffman said how the media has homogenized how women are publicly depicted do you think that men are also publicly depicted?

Will media ever become neutral in gender roles or will things always stay the same?

Women as Cleaning Machines: An Issue of Framing

As a young woman who has been exposed to many commercials over the course of my lifetime, I have stumbled across a realization about women portrayed in cleaning commercials. Can you personally recall a commercial promoting some type of household cleaning product that featured a male as the lead? You might be able to think of one, maybe two, but how about five? Ten? How many cleaning commercials can you think of that feature women prancing around their sparkling homes sporting aprons and rubber gloves? I am assuming the latter is much higher number. You may already have plenty of examples that you can draw from memory, so instead I found a video addressing this particular phenomenon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqDzKad2Q3M&ob=av3e

This issue directly relates to our topic for the week which is the framing theory. To frame, as defined in the reading by Entmann, “…is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in which such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.” The way the media frame what they broadcast could potentially affect how we as audience members perceive that issue in real life. We have seen this time and time again with the objectification of women, particularly in the media. Especially as Media Studies students, we are all aware that women are oftentimes exploited and portrayed as sex objects all , but that is a whole separate conversation.

On the flip side, women are also being portrayed as the sole household member responsible for cleaning up after everyone else. According to cleaning commercials, women are the only people who know how to clean or use a mop! I wonder if any of you have also noticed this trend. I find this tendency to be partly amusing and partly outdated. I would like to think that the media would represent gender roles in a way that better correlates with modern trends, but according to these commercials women are still the only family members responsible for cleaning the house. Maybe it’s just my family that’s different, but my dad does the cooking, the grocery shopping, the laundry, and sometimes the cleaning. Is that the case in your house? According to the framing theory, the way that topics are framed in the media could potentially influence how the public forms beliefs about reality.

Erving Goffman explored the way media might influence viewers:

…he presented an insightful argument concerning the influence advertising could have on our perception of members of the opposite sex… We might be learning more than product definitions from these ads. We could be learning a vast array of social cues…Advertisers didn’t create sex-role stereotypes, but, Goffman argued, they have homogenized how women are publicly depicted.

Do you think these cleaning commercials focused on women enforce the notion that women are responsible for cleaning? Does it become a subconscious belief that it the woman’s job, or do you think that these one-sided commercials have no effect whatsoever on what people believe about who should do the cleaning?

What other dominating portrayals of gender roles to you see depicted in the media?