Dangerous Hatred in the U.S.

This weeks article was about our President, Barack Obama, and how the health care reform has sparked the debate whether racism is playing a role in it. I found this article to be very interesting because we as a country say we have come a long ways since the time of segregation and racism, but from what the article says it seems we haven't progressed at all. Hard core right wing politicians and some Republicans have been coming up with reasons and, in my opinion, crazy excuses as to why Obama is a racist and that his health care reform is only benefiting African Americans and no one else. It amazes me that people can say things like this when any of the liberal candidates that ran for president would have done the same thing whether they were white, black or any ethnicity.
       It's not a matter of racism that is fueling the health care reform, but it is more about a Democratic way of thinking. Democrats are more about making everything equal between everyone and with the Health Care reform it is trying to make sure that everyone has a fair chance at getting the medical attention they need. Obama is obviously trying to do this and I believe that the only reason why Republicans believe he is racists is because of his skin color. If Hillary Clinton was president of the United States and she did the same thing with health care I bet that no one would be saying she is a racist. I also really like the point in the article that Obama won by 9 million votes last November meaning an awful lot of white people voted for him. To me Obama is not a racist but rather he is doing his job as a president with a Democratic view. I still can't believe people accuse our president of being racist. I mean honestly racism and segregation was so far in the past that there is no reason that it should still be a topic talked about in today's times.
         Overall, accusing our president of being racist for an idea that is politically driven blows my mind, but no matter what happens there will always be those radicals that will be against any President that has to make a tough decision.

Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting our Culture?

This weeks issue is about hate speech and whether it is affecting our culture. Hate speech can be interpreted a number of different ways, it all depends on who you ask. To me I see hate speech as any form of a degrading word used to describe a person in a negative way. With this definition of hate speech in mind it is quite obvious to see that the media uses hate speech a number of times everyday, which is then directly affecting our culture. With so much trust and dependence on the media it causes us to start and believe that what we see from them is how our culture should act. For example, newspapers will have headlines stating how terrible the Middle East is and how so many of our soldiers are being killed by extremists. Headlines like this then cause our society to believe that everyone from the Middle East is a terrorist, which is completely not true. Also, TV reality shows are all about bashing people with hate speech because it creates drama, which people love to watch. People then see these reality shows and try to mimic what they see, so their lives can have drama and excitement too. Pop culture icons are also a big part of why hate speech is affecting our culture. Lets take Kane West for example. He can say a lot of mean things like George Bush doesn't like black people but because we view Kanye as someone who is cool and important we as a society tend to let it slide and our youth then feels it is OK to act similarly. Hate speech has become an acceptable thing to do in our culture which 20 years ago was unheard of. It is sad to see that people will put other people down to make themselves feel better. Hopefully our culture realizes that hate speech is only making us worse and nothing is gained from it, so that we can change and make ourselves a culture of friendliness not hatred.

Do Media Represent Realistic Images of Arabs?

The media now-a-days has the tendency to over exaggerate stereotypes and the views of other cultures. One culture in particular that the media tends to stereotype is the Arab race. In my opinion the media does not even come close to providing a balanced view of Arabs, especially since 9/11. For example, shows such as 24 portray Arabs as terrorists planning to attack the U.S.. In other shows such as The Gaurdian and The Practice they have had episodes that portray Arab looking characters as terrorists. It's not only TV shows that show negative images of Arabs, but also news coverages of Muslims center mainly on events, groups and individuals from the Middle East, in response to crises, war and conflict, making it seem that there is nothing good from these people. In the chapter issue we read that Beckerman argues the point that through blogs many Arabs show that there are humane voices in a sea of confusion. The only problem with his argument is that blogs have a limited reach compared to the easy access of the evening news or the headlines from online accounts. Also the media always tend to look and focus on the negative issues that are going on in the Middle East. For example, a  recent headline stated, 'Saudi security forces kill Islamic militants' but Saudi Arabia is a self-described Islamic country whose security forces are 'Islamic'. Perhaps a better headline might have eliminated Islamic. That is another issue with the media. They are so uninformed about the Middle East that they usually will fail to differentiate and just assume that everyone is the same and is a potential terrorist. Being an American it is ingrained into our minds that any one looking like they are from the Middle East is considered a terrorist. For example, we will walk on a plane and see a man wearing a turban we will automatically think that he could be a potential terrorist. It is wrong to do this, but with the media continuing to spew out negative images and headlines about the Middle East it is hard for us to think otherwise because of the trust we put in our news reporters. Hopefully, one day we can see past the media and really see that Arabs are no different then anyone else and that just because they look like the terrorists we see on TV doesn't mean they are one.

Do Media Cause Individuals to Develop Negative Body Images?

This weeks issue is about negative body images and whether the media plays a role in it. The two sides of the argument give solid reasons and explanations as to why the media does or doesn't create negative body images, but from what i have seen and experienced I would have to say that the media does cause people to develop negative body images. Everywhere we look now a days we see pictures of people who are fit, good looking, smiling, perfect skin and the list goes on and on. with this image always being a constant figure in our lives we start to believe that is the way we have to look. From this idea people try to achieve the look of these models and sometimes they take it over the top by turning to options such a anorexia and bulimia. For example, we hear of movie stars all the time suffering from these diseases because of the constant pressure they get from the media to look perfect. Also health magazine ads tell men and women that a healthy body is attainable if they buy these certain products and pamper themselves. With all this negativity around obesity being fat becomes something to be feared of causing people to go to great lengths to try and fix themselves(surgery, extreme dieting, working out, and worst of all not eating). It's not only magazines that are causing people to have negative body images. Us as a society is awful at judging people by their weight and their looks. Everyday it seems like we watch television shows that have have guys and girls judging each other by their looks which then instills the idea into our minds that we have to look a certain way to be liked by others. The media continues to spew out information and ads that show good looking, fit people using their products or wearing a certain clothing brand even with all the negative research that shows that it causes people, girls especially, to develop negative body images. So the only solution it seems right now for this problem is to limit people, younger generations the most, exposure to media, promote healthy eating and moderate physical activity, and encourage participation in activities that increase mastery and self-esteem. Funding for high-quality, visible advertising campaigns promoting healthy life styles may increase awareness. Hopefully, one day we can eliminate this idea about body image and what is the right way to look, because when it comes down to it no one is perfect and we all have flaws. We need to accept who we are and not try to be something were not.

Do Television Shows Today Affect the way People Act in Society? RA 3

Television over the past couple of decades has become a major role in households all over the world. With this in mind I wanted to research and find out if the television shows that we so dearly love can affect the way people act in society. When I first asked myself this question I had to think about it a while, but then I realized that the shows I watch everyday influence the way I act, what clothing styles I like to wear, and even the way I talk to friends. For example, teens are watching shows like Jersey Shore where they see guys and girl’s party till 4 in the morning or another show My Super Sweet Sixteen where kids see sixteen years olds throw elaborate and outrageously priced birthdays. People watch these shows and they start to believe that this is what is right and that to be cool you must act like the people on TV. People then try to follow in the footsteps of these shows by trying to act like the characters they see on TV, which then affects the rest of society.  With TV’s growing importance to society there have been a number of studies done to see the affects it has on people. Corey Sipe of Associate Content has conclusive evidence that agrees with my hypothesis. He stated, “At one time television shows couldn’t even show two married people in the same bed; they had to have separate beds but into today’s shows immorality is reinforced in shows that are similar to soap operas but air in the evening such as Fox’s Beverly Hills 90210. These shows portray characters cheating on their spouses and openly brought up issues about sex that were taboo twenty years ago. Since 90210 first aired we are seeing divorce on the rise, more people are cheating on their spouses, and we are seeing a country that was founded under God being transformed into a society where promiscuous sex and violence dominate today’s television shows”(Sipe 2006). Overall I believe my survey will show that television shows now-a-days do affect the way people act in society and that it is also in a negative way.

                When conducting this survey and asking my sample size the question of whether TV has affected the way they act may seem very similar to other studies done in the past. To make sure that I get honest and real answers that isn’t similar to past studies I plan on asking other questions such as, what shows do they watch, how often they watch them, and have they ever felt like the show has persuaded the way they thought about things. By asking these other questions I will be able to target a more specific answer to the main question. Also, from these other questions I will be able to see what shows tend to affect people the most and whether it has a negative or positive effect on people. For example, if someone says they frequently watch shows like Desperate Housewives and they tend to believe that divorce and having scandalous affairs is a normal thing in society then I can obviously make the correlation and say that this person is affected by the show and in a negative way.  By having my survey be a little different than past studies by having a few more detailed questions, in my opinion, will give me much more honest and unbiased answers  that will prove that TV does affect the way people act in society.

                After organizing my questions and strategy of how I will conduct the survey I will then go out and start applying the survey to my sample size. My population for this survey will be California residents of all ages and my sample size will be northern California residents of all ages. The reason why I am choosing northern California residents is because, in my opinion, southern California is much more a materialistic region and my results would definitely be lop sided with the majority of people saying that television does affect the way they act. To get my results I will be surveying people with a hard copy of the questions where they will answer the questions on a piece of paper by circling yes or no and filling in the information. By doing it this way I feel I will get the most accurate results because if I ask them verbally they may answer the questions untruthfully because they don’t want to be embarrassed or judged. That is why if I do the survey through paper they can keep their answers anonymous and answer the questions truthfully giving me the best possible results.

                From the research that I have already done and seen I would have to say that my results will be very one sided with most of the surveys suggesting that television does affect the way people act in society. Once I get enough people to take my survey roughly around 50 to 70 people I will then use bar graphs to show how the data proves or disproves my hypothesis.

                By researching this question further I believe I will get a strong amount of the surveys showing that TV does affect the way people act which means my hypothesis should be correct. Television is such a big part of our lives today that I can’t imagine our lives without it. In my opinion everybody is influenced by television one way or another, but we will see what other people have to say when they take the survey.  

Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior?

With video games becoming so popular in the last 10 years there as been a number of concerns about how they affect people. One of the main concerns that people have with video games is that it may encourage violent behavior. In my opinion, I do believe video games encourage violent behavior. When I was a kid growing up I remember playing on the playgroud and we used to imitate Power Rangers and fight each other. Now-a-days though video games like Grand Theft auto and Call of Duty all involve violent behavior with guns. These games reward players with points the more they kill. Obviously, from an older person perspective I know the difference between whats right and whats wrong, but when younger generations from the ages of 13 and younger start playing these games they might see it and think that these acts of violence are ok. Think of it in a different way. Kids watch their parents do certain habits such as the way they speak, the way they drive, the way they dress and kids then pick up on these habits and start doing them thinking that is right. With this in mind what will kids start to do if they believe that what they see in video games is acceptable? It is a natural habit for us to see something and follow and obtain the same habits and when it comes to kids who are absorbing information like sponges it is crucial that they stay away from video games because they can be influenced easily and pick up on the violent behavior.

A study for the American Psychological Association's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology concluded that video games can increase a persons aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior. Their findings were that students who reported playing more violent video games in junior and high school engaged in more aggressive behavior. The study concluded that video games are more harmful than than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor. I believe no matter how much people see video games as encouragment to violent behavior, video game makers will still make violent games and people will continue to play them. Hopefully, parents of kids will limit or even ban their kid's from playing any video games because of the negative effects it could have. It may sound like a stretch to do this, but I think kids should read books or enjoy the great outdoors rather than sit in front of a TV all day that encourages violent behavior. Either way video games are here to stay and we must cope with what it brings to our society.

Is Advertising Good for Society?

This week we were asked about advertising and if it is good or bad for society. This was a tough question to answer because there are so many different forms of advertising and also both sides of the argument have legitimate reasons for why advertising is good or bad. After thinking about how advertising has affected me I came to the conclusion that advertising is good for society. The reason I say advertising is good is because it informs us of what products, businesses, places, technology and other things that the world has to offer us. For example, when the iPhone first came out there were a ton of commercials about it letting us know of its capabilities and how the technology of phones has changed forever. If it wasn't for advertising the iPhone wouldn't have been able to be successful as it is know and because competitors wouldn't have known about it either they wouldn't have been pushed to make a similar or better product. By having advertising in our society it creates competition between businesses and brands. When a certain company advertises their new latest and greatest product, competitors will see this and start on building or marketing a new product that will be similar if not better so that they do not fall behind. With businesses going back and forth like this trying to make the products they have even better it helps grow the world to be even better than it already is. The majority of things we see and use today would have never came about if it wasn't for advertisement because businesses would have never strived to make better products since they wouldn't know about competitors and their products. Advertisements do get us to buy products we don’t need, but at the same time it does give us a choice or at least a sense of having a choice. Advertising is essential for businesses because it helps get there products recognized and bought buy consumers, which in turn means more money flow and a better economy. Advertising helps people to spend their money on goods and products which then helps business to pay their employees who then go back out and spend it on goods and services. It is a never ending cycle and advertising is at the center of it all. Without advertisements people wouldn't know what to spend their money on and if you thought the economy is bad now just think if there were no commercials. Money flow would be stagnant and businesses would fall apart and eventually the economy wouldn't even exist!!!(little over the top, but you get the point). Because we as a society rely on T.V. and other media outlets so much that if there was no advertising at all we would be completely lost. As you can see from the examples above advertising is essential for our society and we cannot live without it.

Are People Better Informed in the Information Society?

This week we were asked the question, are people better informed in the information society? Well first off when they say the information society they are referring to the Internet and other sources of media that we use everyday. After thinking deeply about this question and reading the two sides of the argument I would have to say that people are much better informed in the information society. The reason I sided for the information society is because when you look at how far we have come in the past 20 years it is amazing. Kids are learning algebra in elementary school, People know the latest news around the world with a click of a mouse, and colleges are receiving record amounts of applicants. As we read in the article, Linda Jackson does a test with students from the ages of 10 to 18 seeing how there test scores are affected when they use the Internet more often. The results showed that kids who used the Internet more had higher scores on standardized test of reading achievement and higher GPA's. From these test results how can you argue that the Internet and media have a negative effect on people? However I do agree that Internet usage should be limited to a certain amount of hours each week because kids do tend to abuse the privilege of the Internet. Also another reason people are more informed in the information society is because instead of people sitting around asking themselves questions and wondering about the answer, people can get on their computers and research anything they want. With the way technology is constantly growing and expanding I think that the Internet will be essential in the future for our youth and no matter how much you may argue that were better off without the Internet, the Internet will still grow and over power any objections you have towards it. The future will be a very technology savvy era and I think it will go down in history as one of the greatest and most important times that the world has ever seen.

RA #1

Dear to whom it may concern at BBC,

                I am writing to you today to inform you of the great job you guys have been doing with your online website BBC.com. I would like to compliment your online broadcastings work on the clear and relevant stories you cover every day. BBC covers a vast range of different news from all over the world, which I thoroughly enjoy because not only can I know the latest issues going on in the U.S., but also I can follow foreign news and affairs. Plus instead of just focusing on one country BBC has equal amounts of new stories and information from countries all over, which shows there is no favoritism or side taking in BBC’s reporting. For example, on your website each country has their own link that allows me to see and read the current news headlines for that country, which I love because to me foreign affairs are just as important as U.S. news. I would also like to compliment BBC for the honest and unbiased reporting you have on each of the stories you cover. It is tough now-a-days to keep audiences interested when other news outlets will lie and exaggerate stories to spice up the news in an attempt  to draw more viewers, but you guys do a fantastic job of covering the truth and still keep it interesting. Another thing that I really like about BBC is the fact that you guys report on stories that are actually news worthy. For example, while CNN is writing stories about what celebrity just got caught for drugs or drunk driving you guys are reporting about possible presidential candidates in the U.S. and the latest updates from the war. I also really like how BBC’s homepage is filled with a variety of different topics other than the news. You guys cover sports, business, entertainment, art, science, gardening, food and the list goes on. I find it amazing that BBC can cover such a large volume of topics and information and be straight forward and unbiased about the majority of it. In my opinion the key to BBC’s unbiased reporting is the choice of words that is used in each of the stories headlines. For example, one of your headlines states, “Israeli cabinet backs Jewish oath” (BBC.co). By using the word “backs” it makes it seem that BBC is just reporting the news rather than reporting an opinion. Other news websites would have probably said words like, strongly agrees or taking sides, which makes it seem more of a biased and untrue reporting.  With BBC reporting about news from all over the world in a neutral manner it is easy to say that you guys report in a democratic way giving people what they want  and in a truthful way. If there was one thing that I would have to criticize BBC for it would probably have to be the occasional irrelevant story being covered. Every once in a while BBC will cover a story that most people don’t even care to look at or read, but I understand that some days there just isn’t enough important news to put up on the homepage of the website so you guys have to fill in the gap with some secondary news stories. Even with these occasional random news stories I still believe that BBC is one of the top rate online news stations to follow and I would recommend everybody to try and take a look at your website. Thank you for your time and continue with the great work!

Your loyal follower,

Brendan Jin

BBC For RA#1

For this weeks assignment we were assigned to critique one of the online news sources that we have been looking at and I decided to look at BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). BBC in my opinion is one of the more realistic and factual new sources out there, but even still they have some over exaggerated articles and headlines that just seem to be more of an eye catcher than actual good news. BBC has the best of both online news reporting with some very true and accurate stories, and also some fake news focused on attention and not accuracy, which will be great for my letter because I will be able to criticize as well as compliment BBC and give a thorough and detailed critique of how I view there corporation. BBC is Europe's largest online news source and I think it will be a lot of fun to to write this letter and let them know how viewers in the U.S. truly see their online page.

International perspectives on local/global issues

For this weeks assignment we were to spend at least 2 hours reading/ watching news from different international presses online and report about the different perspectives that each of them have about a certain issue. After looking at a few of the different international presses I decided to focus on the latest U.S. drone attack in Pakistan that supposedly killed 8 Germans that were part of a group called Jihad Islami. All of the international presses had similar facts, but there reactions to it were much different. For example, when I looked at the article that CNN had posted about it they said how this group of people was very dangerous and possibly on the verge of starting a terrorist attack. "The strike comes a day after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issued a joint bulletin warning that terror attacks were being plotted against targets Europe. European intelligence officials said Monday that a group of jihadists from Germany were at the heart of the plots...." (CNN). While the U.S. viewed the Drone attack as more of necessity countries like Qatar saw it as more of a killing spree.

The Qatar news called it a raid on a mosque, while the U.S. called it a strike on a building holding terrorists. Obviously the Qatar news makes it sound like a tragedy that was uncalled for while the U.S. makes it sound like they were coming to save the day. For example, the Qatar online news had this quote about the attack, "What is raising the alarm bells here is that despite the fact that there may be some evidence to suggest that these people are indeed militants, Germans in this case ... there is, of course, this apprehension that most of the time these strikes are taking place not caring about the civilian casualties." CNN had only mentioned killing potential terrorists/ extremist, while the Qatar news talks about innocent civilians being victims.

When I looked at Russia's online news they had absolutely nothing about the attack and they seemed to have plently of their own problems that were more important.

It amazes me how so many different news outlets can report about the same topic, but yet have completely different views about them. This just goes to show us that what we see in our evening news may not be the truth and that the U.S. media is oblivious to some of real facts, but will neglect to report them because of the negative image it may give the United States.

Fox primary: complicated, contractual

This weeks article was about 4 of the possible presidential Republican candidates: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee . The issue that was brought up in the article was the fact that Fow news with the exception of Mitt Romney, have deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office. The contract has all four of the candidates tied in so that they can only be seen on TV through Fox news and no other media outlet. On top of this all four of them are getting paid by Fox news. In my opinion this outrageous!  Not only does it make all four of these candidates look like hero's but also we as voters don't get to see them answer the tough topics that could make or break a voters choice. Also I feel as if it is a monopoly and that Fox news has gone above and beyond of what is right. By having these contracts it makes it tough for journalists and reporters to get the truth about what each of the candidates plan to do if they were in office and also it gives the Republicans a much bigger advantage when election time comes. While the Democratic candidates are facing the big 3 networks and other media outlets and answering all the hard questions, Republicans will be breezing through and be approached with questions that will only make them look like hero's. This quote from the article pretty much sums it up:" Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party".
    Their contracts also state that they will continue to get paid as long as they haven't declared their candidacy. I find this to be ridiculous because Palin has been setting up her campaign for months now and all Fox is doing is paying for her to have this big run at president all because she hasn't declared yet. I must say it is a very strategic and well thought out plan by the Republicans but this a Democracy and we the people deserve to know what each candidate can bring to the office. Overall this upsets me to see that the Presidential election races can be manipulated so easily by the media. Hopefully, the government will see what is going on and put  a stop to any type of media contracts with possible presidential candidates.

Can Media Regain Public Trust?

This week’s reading brought up the question, Can media regain public trust? This was an interesting question because in the reading both sides of the argument gave pretty good reasons why or why not, but in my opinion I feel that the media has dug themselves a hole they won't be able to get out of and no matter what they do they will always have the reputation of being fake and misleading. Media now-a-days isn't about telling the truth or straight facts, but rather they are more interested in trying to get more viewers and up their ratings. By increasing their ratings and viewers this means that they will earn more money, which is what every media outlet wants, so when it comes to telling the news the media will stretch the truth and even tell lies to make the news sound more interesting. With the media constantly doing this I do not see the public ever trusting the media again because of their poor reputation. Also I don't even think that the media would even plan on changing their ways to regain the public’s trust because if they did they would probably lose a ton of money. Even if the news is untrue people will still rather watch that then watch a boring, but also more factual show. For the media to even have a shot at regaining the public’s trust it would have to do a complete makeover of how they portray the news. Every newscast, magazine, newspaper, and internet website would all have to agree to portray the news in a factual and truthful way so that all fake news would be abolished from existence. After all this I still believe that the media would have a hard time regaining the public’s trust, but after time it might have a slight chance. Hopefully one day the media will change its ways so that they are broadcasting factual and trustworthy news, but only time will tell and to tell you the truth I don't think we will be seeing any change soon.

California Governor's Race 2010

2010 is the year of California's governor race. This year the two main candidates are Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown is the democratic candidate. He has been the governor of California once before in 1975 and he most recently was the the mayor of Oakland. His opponent is Meg Whitman. Whitman is the Republican candidate for Governor of California. Whitman was Chief Executive Officer and President of eBay from 1998 to 2008, and served on its board of directors. She is the fourth wealthiest woman in the state of California with a net worth of $1.3 billion in 2010, and has spent more of her own money than any other self-funded political candidate ever. There are a number of third party nominee's running for governor, but the chances of them winning are very slim to none. From what I have seen this years Governors race is very tight. It seems each week the the votes of probable voters goes from one side winning back to the other. Also Meg Whitman has had way more commercials than Jerry Brown and the majority of them haven't been promoting her campaign, but rather they are bashing Jerry Brown. Meg Whitman is using the strategy that if she rules the media side of the competition she will get more of the voters attention and use that to her advantage. So far her strategy in my opinion has not been working all that great, but the election is still 2 months away and anything can happen between now and then. With California usually being a liberal state I think Meg Whitman will have a hard time trying to convince voters to vote for her, but at the same time Jerry Brown isn't the most popular among Democrats so it is very possible liberals will give their votes to Whitman. This years Governors race is by far one of the more exciting to watch, and I can't wait till November roles around because I have feeling this race is going to go down to the very last vote.

Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?

In this weeks issue we were asked the question, "will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement?' After researching, reading, and thinking about it I came to the conclusion that evolving forms of journalism will not be an improvement and it will actually cause more of a mess. For example, now-a-days twitter, blogs, and facebook are all new forms of journalism, but these all are very common ways of misleading and untrue sources of news. A lot of the time people will post things on their websites without actually knowing or having information to back the truth. When this happens people then read or see the false information and will believe it, then pass it on causing problems for the real truth to be discovered or reported by actual news reporters. Also issue 10 asks us to talk about how journalism could be improved. The one big issue that I have with journalism is that because there are so many different forms of it that they never seem to have the same story. I feel that when I turn on the TV to watch the evening news each station has a different view and opinion about the story they're covering, which makes it very difficult for the viewer, me, to follow what is really going on in the world. In some ways evolving forms of journalism has made an improvement, for example, the speed at which we get our information can be amazingly fast. Instead of waiting till we get home to turn on the news or waiting the next day to read it in the newspaper we can get mobile updates straight to our phones and computers. Even though these evolving forms of technology have made our information easier and faster to obtain I would still prefer to wait and get the real story about what is really going on and make sure the journalist and reporters are positive about what they are relaying to the public. Hopefully, journalism will return to its roots and start reporting stories with more precision and accuracy, but with so many different forms of journalism I can only see this problem getting worse.

Fake News

After watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, it became obvious that they expected the audience to be familiar with the current events already. Furthermore, if you had not heard about the event before seeing the show, then you would not truly appreciate the humor of the show. In my opinion, Stewart was more dramatic than Colbert, and he seemed to be more dynamic in his presentation. His facial expressions, the intonation in his voice and the theatricality of his movements made the show more interesting. When comparing "fake news" with a typical news broadcast there are a number of differences. For example, when watching the local news broadcast it seems as though the anchors are robots reading off a teleprompter and sitting in a stiff upright position. Stewart and Colbert sit in a similar way during their shows but it is more of a spoof as they are incorporating a bit of improv in their presentations. This is not to say that they have not planned their shows. For example, Colbert's show used the text box in the corner of the screen to add one liners to enhance the jokes. Stewart and Colbert do have very clever shows, and they are talking about real issues, but they have been exaggerated. Should a person be unfamiliar with current events and hear about something on the show for the first time, they may take it too literally. Hopefully this is not the case and people really start to understand current events and follow the truth about the news.

Does Fake News Mislead the Public?

After reading Issue 9 "Does Fake News Mislead the Public" I came to the conclusion that fake news does mislead the public. Both sides of the argument have really good points and reasons why news does or doesn't mislead the public, but after really thinking about my own life situations and how I've seen fake news I would definitely say that I have been mislead and miss informed. Even the real news now a days is fake in some aspect. It's very hard now-a-days to find the real truth especially with shows like The Daily Show giving us our main source of entertainment and news. Younger generations seem to seek out the more entertaining and comedic shows rather than the truthful more insightful shows. As we read in the book less than 20% of youth read the newspaper daily because they seek the more entertaining sources of information such as Jay Leno, David Letterman, or Jon Stewart. All of these shows are somewhat true, but they all seem to stretch the truth and the people who watch this(mostly younger generations) will believe what they say not only because they like the show, but also because it's their only source of news. I know that in my life that most of my news comes from friends and shows similar to The Daily Show. As part of America's youth I honestly don't want to watch old men sit around a table and talk about politics and I am sure there are plenty of people who feel the same way. Our generation is obsessed with humor and what better way to make the news more interesting than to make it a comedy. Also I believe the reason why the public is so mislead by the news is because we think that everything we see or hear on TV must be true just for the simple fact that we do not think TV would lie to us. The sad part about this is that television is all about their ratings and they will do anything to get them higher, even lie. Overall fake news does mislead the public and with the media becoming an even bigger part of today's essential needs I think that even more people will be misinformed and the truth will become a lost cause.

MSNBC vs. FOX NEWS

After watching two different political shows on TV it opened my eyes to a whole new level of politics. One of the shows I watched was the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC and the other show was the Glenn Beck show on FOX news. Both shows were very opinionated and had completely different views on politics. Maddow's show was a liberal based show and she talked about the issue on immigration especially in Arizona. In my opinion she seemed to have a good argument because she backed her opinion with facts and stats that she acquired from the border patrol bureau. I found her show really interesting because she raised some really good points about why the immigration law in Arizona isn't effective and how it ha actually caused more of a mess than do any good. For example, she showed a bar graph that showed illegal immigration is down 20% from the year 2000-2005. She also showed us that some of the Arizona governor's partners were heads of immigration correctional facilities, which means that the Governor not only is trying to pass this law to keep immigrants but is also doing it to keep her partners happy. The other show I watched was the Glenn Beck show on Fox news. Beck's show was much more conservative and was the complete opposite of Maddow in every way possible. Beck was criticizing President Obama for pretty much everything that has gone wrong in the past year. Beck also called Obama a Muslim and was warning us that if Obama wasn't impeached that the US would be heading for some serious trouble. It seemed to me that Beck had some pretty outrageous ideas about politics and I found them to be kind of crazy, but he did have video to try and back his opinion but even then I still wasn't convinced that what he was saying was true. Overall both shows were very informational and I really enjoyed watching both of them. Hopefully one day we can see the two sides of the political spectrum become closer in ideals and see eye to eye about issues going on in the world and US.

Are American Values Shaped by the Mass media?

After reading chapter 1 in our book Taking Sides I found it really interesting how much media is apart of our lives today. The reading made me question myself whether my values have been shaped by mass media and after thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that mass media has curved my values in one way or another. For example, MTV has shows that encourage dating, fashion styles, and partying and I can honestly say that from watching those shows when growing up it made me think that those were the right values to have and that was the way I should live life. James Carey had some good points about why the media doesn't affect our values, but if you think about it the media and technology run our lives. We turn on the TV to see whats going on in the local news and their broadcasts are usually favoring one side over the other, which then causes us to follow the same values as the broadcasts because we trust that the news is always right. Also the computer has completely changed the values of many people. Before cellphones it was unacceptable to answer the phone when talking to someone or eating at the dinner table, but now a days people are texting underneath the table while eating and answering their cell phones whenever they please. The media has completely changed the rules and boundaries of peoples values and I know for a fact it has had a huge impact on me and it will probably still have an impact on me forever.

wow

i made a blog all by myself

yahoo!!

made a blog!