380: Writing for Broadcast News

MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING...by Jared Hill

2007-04-25T09:31:00.000-07:00

"Deep change does not begin in the political process or with single issues; it
begins among ordinary people deciding to change their circumstances." Bill
Moyers, Inequality Matters.....
Do we honestly believe that this kind of change is even a possibility in
contemporary society considering the structure of society in regards to upward
mobility, political participation, and the general inequalities of income and
wealth? Imagine CEO'S being OK with being compensated at the same rate as
individuals in low-income families or the Bush Administration passing up tax
cuts to benefit the wealthy elites while simultaneously putting the poor at
more of a disadvantage for upward mobility. You're better off finding a needle
in a heystack! This is how the wealthy stay wealthy but more importantly it's
how inequality in America threatens democracy.
If these actions were not beneficial to us all this would certainly be a
problem. At the same token, you also have situations where individuals on
welfare will not go out and look for a full-time job with benefits because of
the benefits they do receive that they otherwise wouldn't if they were not on
welfare.
How can we expect change when we have people in this nation (from the poor to
the wealthy) who value self-interests that contribute to inequalities of income
and wealth? The link between ownership of work and inequality of reward
prohibits participation for individuals who are unable to voice their opinions
and have influence on decisions being made regarding their lives as well as
others.
With all due respect, an ideal world for middle class, working class
families is undeniably different from an ideal world for the wealthy and the
elite, not to mention those in poverty. With that in mind, how can we begin to
come to change when the master-servant relationship in this country in regards
to ownership thrives off of power rather than collaboration?

Which one did you watch???

2007-02-28T20:12:00.000-08:00

Interview with Rep. Ron Paul "for president"

OR....

Anna Nicole on drugs

...Which one did you click on?

The Fourth Estate yo.

2007-02-26T19:31:00.000-08:00

I believe that there are still journalists around that fulfill their duty as watchdog's over the government. But at times I think it's hard to not report on issues that people are paying more attention to.

I think it does make all journalists look bad however, when some of our colleagues think that covering a bald headed Brittany or a still dead Anna Nicole is news. But like I said, a majority of the people in this country are more concerned with pseudo news than the real stuff. Tonloc out.

Ricky Almada - Social Participation

2007-02-25T13:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Eclipse of the Local

2007-02-19T23:08:00.000-08:00

Chapter 5 in Tuned Out goes over the failure of citizens, and journalists to keep up with local news. Mindich questions if television and the Internet really have something to do with the decline in young people watching/reading the local news. My opinion? Of course it does.

He believes sex, celebrities, and especially violence, sell, and hes right. More than 90 percent of all local television news stories came from police scanners or public relations events and less than 10 percent of all stories came from initiative reporting. I happened to notice that at my internship over this past summer. All over the newsroom there are police scanners and tvs and everyone is working on their own story but when there is a chase going on every single person in the room is watching.

Supposedly, African Americans tend to watch more local news than whites or Hispanics due to the crime and violence that is shown on a daily basis. I feel as though it should be based on each community, because each community is different. A community that is tight can drive news consumption.

On the other hand, many young people do not watch the news simply because it is boring and depressing. Mindich says that unless “sensational” figures such as celebrities become fixtures on the campaign trail, local news outlets may be short lived. In my opinion, I know for a fact many people my age are more inspired to go out and do something if they see their favorite celebrity doing it. Mindich points out that many people will volunteer or do something simply because they have to. But maybe if it was encouraged better more people would have the desire to do it?

Then there is the case of the Internet. Young people now a days would rather IM and chat with friends online than watch the news, I mean it is more enjoyable and socially involving. Most young people today feel they deserve to watch tv or go chat online after a hard day at school.

The question is, how can we get the younger population to actually enjoy the local news?

Reading Response

2007-02-12T20:23:00.000-08:00

I think young people are tuned out regardless of it being a money issue. Politics just don't generally spark interest in young people. But that's not necessarily the case for everyone. I happen to enjoy politics but that's because it's my minor. Maybe more political science classes in middle school and high school could possibly generate more interest in the future. But for now here is a funny picture:

Inequality Matters

2007-02-11T23:04:00.000-08:00

In chapter “Of the few, by the few, for the few” Moyers says that the reason why one of us can’t go have lunch with our senator or reach a politician to voice our concerns is simply because of money. Money makes politicians available to those helping then financially with their campaign, other politicians or simply a rich old guy with power, before they make time for anybody else. Politicians are more interested in pleasing corporations than pleasing citizens. Why? Money again. How far could I really get if I try to reach a state senator to voice a concern that young people in Tucson might have? I have no money to give to their campaign, don’t belong to a political party so really I’m not in their priority list. Millions of dollars are spent on political campaigns as well as on propositions that want to pass in each state. In order to get that money politicians must make friends with those in big corporation and promise a reward or a “get out of jail free” card to the companies aiding them financially. So why would any of us have any chance at being on the appointment book of Jon Kyl?
I believe that the disengagement of politicians with the real people of their city, state or even of their country drives young Americans to tune out of the political world. Because politicians do not make an effort to reach a middle-class college student, the same college student will make no effort to engage in the news and what is going on in the political world. NPR did a series on economic inequality last week and one of the points made in the reports was that while some things have gotten better (women's average pay compare to men's) other have gotten worse (health care availability and help from the government for those who don't have it) so there really is a lot to be done in order to reach a more equal society.
Do you agree that the influence money has on politicians and the political world in general have pushed young people to tune out of political news even more?

Class and being 'Tuned Out'

2007-01-31T20:44:00.000-08:00

I think the further and further the upper-class pulls away from the middle and lower classes the less and less people will want to tune into the news. I think if the lower class keeps getting heavily suppressed by the government and keep seeing the rich get more and more tax cuts while the lower class keeps falling further behind, making the lower class tune out of the news. I feel as though more educated people are more likely to make more money and be successful. Someone who grows up in a low-income household and does not get a proper education is likely to end up in the same place. If the poverty stricken have the proper resources maybe then they can rise up to be sucessful.

In “Inequality Matters” it says the elite class schools have more money than the lower class schools. In the first chapter of the book Bill Moyers talks about how the lower class schools do not even have an up-to-date library. A boy who wants to write a paper for Black History month can’t even write it because books do not exist in his school's library after the 1960s. How do we expect to help the poor if we, the middle to upper classes, do not help fund it? How do we expect the lower class to tune in if there is a library full books from the 1950s and 60s, that the future of this country is reading. This may mean paying a few more dollars in taxes, but it will be well worth it in the long run. More people out of poverty means more money for our country, then more people may tune back into the news.

A decline in media trust equals a decline in media viewership

2007-01-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

Ill have to agree with Jeanie that there is not one party responsible for the shift in news values, it is the fault of both the media and the public for allowing the shift from hard news to entertainment news to happen. However, as a 21 year old and a future entertainment journalist, i think that this trend is prepetuated further by the growing mistrust of the media outlets themselves. Corporate media outlets are first and foremost a business and with that comes certain agendas. If a spot about nipple covers will garner more viewers and rate higher than an update on condoleeza rice's whereabouts, then you can bet that these light, entertainment stories will continue to eat up more air time.

Another factor that is directly related with the decline of hard news viewers is what Mindich calls complacency, or the feeling of uselessness and irrelevance to the democratic process. Many young people today dont vote and admittedly dont care about politics and elections because they feel like their vote doesnt matter. This then drives them away from political or governmental news, which makes up nearly the whole newscast (except for a spot on nipple covers :)

I can easily see how many young Americans feel this way, especially after the 2000 election when al gore won the popular vote but not the electoral vote and was defeated. It leaves one wondering why even vote if what is seemingly popular to the American people can be overridden if its not popular with the "higher ups" in Washington? After that, the infamously dirty and cutthroat election of 2004 besmeared the image of the 'clean and honorable politician' and drained any remaining faith from young voters.

These two recent elections alone are enough for me to understand why many young people have abandoned the typical newscast and opted for lighter entertaining stories. Its not suprising to me that young people are becoming what Mindich calls "thin citizens", in that they often do not engage in the democratic process and "only follow the outlines of democracy."

Entertainment vs. News

2007-01-14T19:45:00.000-08:00

In Tuned Out, Mindich begins by asking how the balance between entertainment and news has shifted over time.

As one who follows the news on a fairly regular basis, I would argue that entertainment values are beginning (if they haven’t already) to override basic news values.

Just look at CNN.com. There is at least one entertainment story a day that makes it into their “most popular” read category. Today, the entertainment story “Nipple covers, other star secrets” ranked number 7, while the story about Condoleezza Rice meeting with Jordan’s king ranked number 9.

It is disappointing that CNN.com readers would rather read about nipple covers than what the U.S. Secretary of State is doing in Jordan, but stars and their undergarments can be more entertaining than politics and certainly easier to understand. But what will affect us on a higher level tomorrow- nipple covers or peace plans that the U.S. is supporting in other countries?

Sometimes I opt for the more entertaining stories because I do not understand foreign policy or I have trouble seeing how it affects me. I think this is one reason that people (especially younger readers and viewers) do not follow the news on a regular basis.
Our society is extremely self-absorbed and self-serving. Why read about Jordan or Iraq when we can entertain ourselves by surfing Facebook or MySpace? (Let’s be honest- who spends more time reading the news than they do looking at online profiles?)

I think it is the fault of both the media and the public for allowing values to shift from news to entertainment. The media expects too much from the public and the public expects too little from the media. Or is it ok for entertainment to be valued more than news? I would argue no, but I am only one future journalist who thinks the media has a little more explaining to do.

antique tv

2006-09-11T10:45:00.000-07:00