Ricky Almada - Social Participation
First and foremost, I like to give a shout-out to my friend “Nana.” Second, Mark thanks for the opportunity to this (I said in a sarcastic tone). Now, lets get to business. In Inequality Matters the basic of the reading was that social groups such as the American Legion have decreased and lobbyist groups have increased. The problem with this is that people from the lower class are now not participating in social movements. In the past, groups like the American Legion had a mixture of classes in which each class had a voice. Now, many lobbyist groups are just seeking for corporate funding or as the book put it “wealthy ‘angles’” and have steered away from the “common” people which leaves them no room to participate (well no as much room).
Which brings me to Tuned Out. This chapter basically reinforced what I learn in J470 and that is the Fourth Estate (which is us) needs to be the government watchdog. As journalist, we need to keep an eye on the government and can’t be afraid to ask the “hard hitting questions.” I think some journalist really are, but others in the main stream media aren’t. I turn on the TV and some of the news channels are their talking about how and why Britney Spears shaved her head (I hope she’s ok, too. It must be hard having all that money, poor girl). Or about Anna Nicole Smith and who will get the baby (a matter, I think should be keep personal). I’m sorry, in both cases this is not news or at least not as important (no just not news). As a country we are really close to a war with Iran and I haven’t seen much news on that. I have seen some reports, but not as much as Spears and Smith.
Which brings me to the “conversations starter,” judging from the readings are journalist at least partially to blame for the lack of participation in groups such as the American Legion? If journalist we’re too considered over “why she’s gone crazy,” are we doing are duty in patrolling the government? Or have we stopped doing this duty which as lead the public to believe that the government is peachy and we can place our trust in them? Sorry, about the long post.
Which brings me to Tuned Out. This chapter basically reinforced what I learn in J470 and that is the Fourth Estate (which is us) needs to be the government watchdog. As journalist, we need to keep an eye on the government and can’t be afraid to ask the “hard hitting questions.” I think some journalist really are, but others in the main stream media aren’t. I turn on the TV and some of the news channels are their talking about how and why Britney Spears shaved her head (I hope she’s ok, too. It must be hard having all that money, poor girl). Or about Anna Nicole Smith and who will get the baby (a matter, I think should be keep personal). I’m sorry, in both cases this is not news or at least not as important (no just not news). As a country we are really close to a war with Iran and I haven’t seen much news on that. I have seen some reports, but not as much as Spears and Smith.
Which brings me to the “conversations starter,” judging from the readings are journalist at least partially to blame for the lack of participation in groups such as the American Legion? If journalist we’re too considered over “why she’s gone crazy,” are we doing are duty in patrolling the government? Or have we stopped doing this duty which as lead the public to believe that the government is peachy and we can place our trust in them? Sorry, about the long post.
posted by Mark Poepsel, Ph.D. at 1:46 PM
8 Comments:
To think we are at war is shocking to some. One would never know just by watching the local news. Sad, but true. All that you see now a days are stories about crime and what is going on with the celebs. I mean come on, watching the Anna Nicole Smith case on every local and national news for two days straight is not my idea of "real" news.
I believe that some journalists (not all) have lost some sense of their role in patrolling the government. I think in some of their eyes it has been hard to stick with the government aspect. Americans have become so indulged in everything else going on in our world that it makes journalists want to report on the more "exciting" stuff.
We are at war, and about to have a new president in a couple months, aren't those two issues more important than deciding who gets Anna Nicole's baby?
Wathcing CNN I noticed that the hard hitting news was at the beginning. followed by the update teaser on Anna Nicole Smith's body. Who get's it? Who is the baby's daddy? etc...This type of news reporting is sensationalistic, because of they way she died and the fact that she mentioned before that she idiolized Marilyn Monroe, so she died almost the same way. The war story was almost mentioned as a "oh by the way" kinds angle, then for about 15-17 minutes it was a package on Smith's body and the various men fighting for her baby, and the mother angry with the court decision. I also went to the grocery store to pick up dinner, and almost every cover of the newstand had Anna Nicole or Britney. One has a cover story on Iraq body death toll up, can't remember the magazine, but it is sad that all we care about is junk news, compared to what we should be considering more since we have to vote on a new president. Do we know what they stand for, or what they "promise" to change in office? I know in my other classes they quiz us on who is running, but they don't ask us why.
In responding to what Jo said about going to the market and seeing only magazine covers with stories on Britney or Anna Nicole I think we see that now because that is what people want to buy. And most of those magazines you saw were not news sources, but if you saw Time magazine with a cover on Britney then I would think journalists really have lost sight of their democratic duty. It is sad that we have lost sight as a nation to what is important, such as the war. I think, in responding to Ricky’s question that journalists have been responsible for the lack of participation in groups because we do not write stories on these groups or educate the public that they even exist. Journalists need to remember they are the government watch dog, not the celebrity watch dog.
I think even those within the news are fixated on the entertainment stories, rather than just the hard news. An example could be our news quiz, which asks for three people who won the Oscars and also the winner of Match Play, but I think Mark through those in there to be nice to us. (Thanks for putting a couple I didn't have to look at Starnet for!)
I think a prime example of why journalists, and news organizations, focus on entertainment is because of advertising dollars. Companies are only going to pay to put their ads on stations that people watch--and it's been proven that we love the glamour of Hollywood, and the thrill/victory of sports, more than we like to hear about how our vice-president almost got himself killed (in Afghan, or on his hunting trips).
Contrast the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams to The NewsHour with Jim Leher, it's clear who relys more on corporate advertising. NBC Nightly News has mentioned Anna Nicole multiple times, and I can attest they also mentioned Britney at least once.
(But don't be fooled, the NewsHour gets their money from private donors so it's not completely exempt from this discussion.)
I believe that journalists, despite knowing what sells advertisements, have the responsibility, as mentioned in the original post, to be the watch-dog. But I don't think it should stop at the government.
We also need to be watch-dogs over ourselves, to ensure that the media is not being bought and sold, like the local politicans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I have seen a lot off the stuff about Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears on the news this week and it is strange. I haven't paid too much attention to the stories, but there are weird things going on with both of them. The stories are almost unbelievable and I think a lot of people are thirsty for juicy stories like these. It makes you say, "Oh my God, what a mess." Crazy whacko stuff is always interesting to here about. It is a contest to see who can put out the craziest story and the one that is the most disturbing. Political news tends to be a bit boring unless you have a story with some dirt in it. If you have a politician that is doing things a rock star might do, then that will make for good ratings.
I'm going to go off of what alexisb and jamie were saying about pop culture being the dominant stories found in everyday news over more hard news like the ongoing war. As much as I hate to say it, and as much as we don't want to admit it, somewhere along the lines journalists focus shifted from "watch-dogging" the government to writing what sells...and therefore makes the big $$$. Profits, be it from publications sales, advertisers, or ratings have become the main focus in what has prirority to get published and what does not. And what the girls already said is right...people want to read about Britney shaving her head and how she's flying into a depressed black hole instead of reading about the same battle day after day that doesn't seem to be making any headway.
Is this a good thing? In my opinion, as a growing journalist, I think absolutely not. I know when I get out into the field I want to be able to write what I want and research topics that haven't been discussed and question government sources who haven't been questioned before. But I also don't want my editor to look at me and say "well that's a nice story idea, but this week we're focusing on Brad Pitts trip to China."
Getting to Ricky's point/question for this discussion, I am almost disappointed in the turn that journalism has taken in the past decade, shifting its focus from governement issues and real-world realities to trivial celeb gossip and fake life living. With us as the incoming journalism generation, we need to keep our heads on straight and rememeber what we have been taught: our job is to report the truth. And we do this for those in our society who don't.
Sorry if this kind of spiraled away from the original subject...I have a tendency to do that :o)
It seems like the news content is much like that of the show Dirt on FX. In the show the lead character combines two magaizones, the factual one and the tabloid, to create a factual but interesting magazing.
She only wants information that is juicy and that will grab the readers attention. Much like the show news organiztions are going about their jobs not looking for the most important stories but rather the shock value stories.
Stories that they can create into a social frenzy where everyone is on the edge of the seat waiting to find out if OJ really did it or whats going to happen to Brittney.
Post a Comment
<< Home