-Donna Woolfolk Cross wrote an article in 1983 that holds true to this day. In “All the news that fits” she identifies numerous problems in the media today. One of the main issues that she has with the media is the position of an anchorman. The position is explained thoroughly by Cross as she explains that if the anchorman were to anchor a story on a hurricane or something devastating with a smile on his face, the audience would forget about how serious the situation is, or not care as much. The other sad part about it is, I wonder how many people in the television audience find themselves commenting on the clothes of the news anchorman rather than the facts that are being presented. In today’s world, this can be seen but nearly as often as it used to. Today major news channels take their news very seriously. The other strategy that is utilized in the media is reporting the same story in different locations. Donna Cross explained a situation where the camera was sent to two people within the studio, on a scene correspondent, and a reporter. This was an interesting point because the situation does seem more serious when they jump around to different locations. When you look at the information that is actually presented, the information is limited.
-William Lutz wrote an article in 1989, titled “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” By the end of this article, one will be exposed of the truths among commercials. William Lutz starts off with explaining the usual amount of commercials watched during a certain time period. What I found interesting is where the commercials are directed. Proven that women and young adults are the most influenced audience for commercials, I thought otherwise. I feel that children would be most influenced but seemingly not. Lutz uses a handful of surveys to show that children of Mexico have a stronger remembrance of commercials rather than their academic teachings. Answering 33% of Academic questions correct, 73% of commercials were answered correctly. Overall, this is just unfortunate, to know that their parents could let this happen is disgusting. It is clearly their fault, because of their lack of parenting skills. Another example of the influence of advertisement involved an example that occurred in Japan. Once the DeBeers and J.Walter Thompson advertising company began running advertisements in Japan, within 13 years diamond engagement sales increased by 60%. Also, when DeBeers’ market was being threatened by Russian companies who were mining small diamonds, De Beers changed their advertisements to focus on the cut /clarity/color and no longer size. This article brought to light the money that is involved with advertisements as well as the stations that run these stations. It is unreal how influential television and commercials can be.
Commercials:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsfNXj9s-iY
Absurd. Girl moans to prove shampoo is that good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdfj8_1jUsw&feature=related
She is too hot to be on the news, way to distracting.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
MS Blog 2 - Net Neutrality
-Network Neutrality, or Net Neutrality for short, is the fundamental principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality is defined as a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that allows no restrictions. This comes from Internet service providers based on contents, sites, platforms, equipment attached, and certain modes of communication. (Dictionary.com)
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html
This New York Times article explains how all sources throughout the Internet should be treated equally.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773657#
This websites article elaborates on how the media plays a major role in net neutrality. The democratic position is drastically effected due to this cause and is thoroughly explained.
http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet/net_neutrality
Here, Free Press discusses what is actually coming of net neutrality and its effects. This is my favorite source simply because its gives specific companies and corporations reasons for wanting net neutrality eliminated.
Whats going on now?
-In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission had adopted four broad principles relating to the idea of network neutrality as part of a move to deregulate the Internet services provided by telephone companies.
-The F.C.C. under the Obama administration is moving to add a fifth principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications.
-The F.C.C. had formally voted in 2008 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, saying that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using popular file-sharing software.
-The court case, which the federal appeals court ruled on in April 2010, centered on Comcast’s challenge of the 2008 F.C.C. order.
Personally, I agree with the companies that are against net neutrality. Basically, it takes away the opportunity for a powerhouse to thrive. Its just like anything, there's always someone better. The nation's largest telephone and cable companies, including Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable, want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. These companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to get rid of Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html
This New York Times article explains how all sources throughout the Internet should be treated equally.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773657#
This websites article elaborates on how the media plays a major role in net neutrality. The democratic position is drastically effected due to this cause and is thoroughly explained.
http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet/net_neutrality
Here, Free Press discusses what is actually coming of net neutrality and its effects. This is my favorite source simply because its gives specific companies and corporations reasons for wanting net neutrality eliminated.
Whats going on now?
-In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission had adopted four broad principles relating to the idea of network neutrality as part of a move to deregulate the Internet services provided by telephone companies.
-The F.C.C. under the Obama administration is moving to add a fifth principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications.
-The F.C.C. had formally voted in 2008 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, saying that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using popular file-sharing software.
-The court case, which the federal appeals court ruled on in April 2010, centered on Comcast’s challenge of the 2008 F.C.C. order.
Personally, I agree with the companies that are against net neutrality. Basically, it takes away the opportunity for a powerhouse to thrive. Its just like anything, there's always someone better. The nation's largest telephone and cable companies, including Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable, want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. These companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to get rid of Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
Monday, November 1, 2010
MS Blog 1 - Barstow's Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/
Here is David Barstow’s April 20th, 2008 article. His lengthy article explains how the Department of Defense recruited over 75 retired military officers to basically lead interviews and discussion on major news channels. Some if these experienced retirees still had numerous ties to what had been going on at that point which was to remain undisclosed. At fault, is the Bush Administration for knowing, and allowing this. This was referred to as turning the media into some sort of media “Trojan Horse.” Information that was supposed to be concealed was released into the public through the media, which just adds onto the cause. Although the Pentagon initially issued a statement exonerating the program, the Pentagon inspector general's office later said it was flawed, and the statement was withdrawn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/media/21barstowqa.html
This is a New York Times Q&A with Barstow, as he is questioned about the article he had previously wrote, his life and how he feels. I agree with what Barstow has to say by all means. As confidentiality is detrimental and very important in life.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904210002
An NBC article/video clip discussed on media matter's about Barstow's article. This is somewhat of the immediate reaction to the situation and how people felt once they saw what was going on.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/med-a25.shtml
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/04/20/nyt
Two in depth article's about the Pentagon and story itself among what had been going on. All specifics are released as the story has blown up.
Here is David Barstow’s April 20th, 2008 article. His lengthy article explains how the Department of Defense recruited over 75 retired military officers to basically lead interviews and discussion on major news channels. Some if these experienced retirees still had numerous ties to what had been going on at that point which was to remain undisclosed. At fault, is the Bush Administration for knowing, and allowing this. This was referred to as turning the media into some sort of media “Trojan Horse.” Information that was supposed to be concealed was released into the public through the media, which just adds onto the cause. Although the Pentagon initially issued a statement exonerating the program, the Pentagon inspector general's office later said it was flawed, and the statement was withdrawn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/media/21barstowqa.html
This is a New York Times Q&A with Barstow, as he is questioned about the article he had previously wrote, his life and how he feels. I agree with what Barstow has to say by all means. As confidentiality is detrimental and very important in life.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904210002
An NBC article/video clip discussed on media matter's about Barstow's article. This is somewhat of the immediate reaction to the situation and how people felt once they saw what was going on.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/med-a25.shtml
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/04/20/nyt
Two in depth article's about the Pentagon and story itself among what had been going on. All specifics are released as the story has blown up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)