Week 8 Media Studies

Carly Goeller

ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS

In Donna Woolfolk Cross’s Article “All the news that fits” it is important to think about the aptly named title of this piece.  When something need to be “Fit” in it is usually an indication that it is not the primary destination of the piece. In this Article, Cross addresses how even the very name of a Television news show is quite deceptive. This general name of the programs suggests what the real purpose of the “Television news show” is.  When you break it down, television comes first, the primary focus of television in broad is to entertain, not necessarily inform. New’s programs which are supposed to be our source of information besides the newspaper and the internet, incorporate entertainment into their programs as much as possible. Cross believes that the “anchorman” or “anchorwomen” who are used in delivering the news does not actually interpret the news. There good looks,  clear and precise oration and comic presence, Cross believes to be an actual distraction from the true meaning of the news. I find this tangible for two reasons. The first of which is that the news can often be very dull, new local PTA meetings aren’t always thrilling occurances. On the other side of the spectrum, the news also has the obligation to deliver all the news from a world that is filled with chaos, murder and disaster. If the Broadcaster was as vulgar and unpleasant as the news he or she was presenting, it would be very doubtful that the program would be fit to last. So, I do understand where cross is coming from. I understand that these decorated and elaborate newspeople often “distract from the true meaning of the news”however I think they are relevant. With regards to broadcasting the news, it is the Medias best chance of portraying the news in a somewhat fathomable fashion, conversely I don’t think this applies to all people, many people can see right past the embellishments.  Also, There is something called “Happy News’ which are usually stories of very little importance, however, they are used to also distract from the often negative tone of the News. When the Anchor transitions from a story about a double homicide, delivered in a monotone voice, to a story about pandas hugging each other in a bubbly voice, this is an example of happy news. However, some stories and news are far to tragic to be forgotten, So no  I do not find “Happy News” to be overly distracting from the news program. So in conclusion, what cross is talking about is that news programs use music, flashy lights and elaborate broadcasters to make their news more entertaining. Some believe this distracts the viewer, however I feel not everyone is as easily distracted, I think most can see through the smokescreen.

WITH THESE WORDS I CAN SELL YOU ANYTHING

William Lutz wrote an article “with these words I can sell you anything” After reading this, I immediately thought of a salesman. A salesman uses pitches and complex persuasion to sell us, the consumer their product. The American public is often very vulnerable to outside influence such as that of a salesperson. Whether its our lack of knowledge or desire for new and better products, the media, more specifically commercials target this.  In media studies so far I have learned just how influential the media can be on everything ranging from the way we talk to even how we think and the list goes on. Lutz mentions that in a time frame of about 2 minutes the public can be subjected to about eight commercials. Recent studies have shown that women, and teenagers are more likely to be persuaded by commercials than men. However, These women and teenagers deny that they are influenced by the commercial. In a psychology class, I once learned about subliminal advertising, which in a broad sense is advertisements are inbeddin within our brain. I know that I myself, find myself rehearsing lines from commercials even days after I have seen it “ trust sleepys, for the rest of your lives” is just one example. Although an effective commercial is very effective in its purpose, which is to sell a product. When it comes between choosing between two products, I am probably going to choose whichever one had the better commercial, as im sure is the consensus with most people who are not experts on the subject. Another interesting fact brought to my attention in this article involves a survey of children, who were asked both academic questions and questions pertaining to television. the Children only responded to the academic question correctly 33% of the time where as television questions 73% of the time. Data such as this speaks volumes to the affect the media and t.v has on Americans, especially younger children. It is easier to persuade the naïve than the educated, and it is easier to manipulate the young rather than the old. This is, as I have heard of primarily with cigarette campaigns in the past, advertisements are often directed towards younger audiences. Also, with regards to advertisements that do not have this same purpose, I have noticed another very common theme in my own journey of the media, sex sells. The media entices my  amazement with the amount of sex driven and somewhat dirty television commercials that are shown to the general public on a daily basis.  Below I have found commercials that justify that indeed the media may target younger audiences and that sex really does sell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVcbasIb8lQ
i picked this commercial because i remember this from my child hood. I was mimicking the frogs along with countless other children in America. Animals draw the attention of children, in turn drawing them to the advertisement.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AxeCleanYourBalls?v=bevJr3Ra84Q&feature=pyv&ad=7454950654&kw=axe
I picked this commercial because it is clearly not talking about sports balls. This add mixes humor along with sex to sell the product.

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

This commercial belittles women and uses sex to persuade the audience.

Network Neutrality

Carly Goeller

NETWORK NEUTRALITY

The Internets interpretation of Network neutrality is a proposed principle for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, and the kinds of equipment that may be attached, along with alternate modes of communication. My interpretation is that Network Neutrality exists as the correlation between the services we pay for from our internet providers and what we are actually receiving from our money. Supposedly you pay for a certain amount of internet access with a cable provider you should be free from restrictions from both internet service providers and the Government. This is the overall basis of Network Neutrality, a standard of internet freedom that I believe to be just. Network Neutrality is about the choice you have to control and take incentive of what you view on the internet. One of the benefits of network neutrality is that it prevents internet providers from blocking or restricting the capabilities of other rival sites. These media conglomerates aren’t monopolies; they have a lot of competition. So in the cut throat business world it wouldn’t be surprising if rival companies started a digital war amongst one another. The bad part about this is that this digital war would only be affecting us by restricting our digital freedom. To provide an example of this and to provide emphasis on why Network Neutrality is so beneficial, lets say your internet provider signs an agreement with a popular search engine such as Google. Its in the companies best interest to encourage you to use their search engine by blocking your acess to a rival engine such as yahoo. I believe if network neutrality is not enforced this is what is going to begin to happen. But once rival companies starts blocking something as simple as what search engine you use, whose to say they will draw a line. If Network Neutrality isnt enforced internet providers will begin to take advantage of their power over our internet. As with anything else in the world, when someone or something is given too much power there are severe consequences. After a while our internet access would be so restricted by the competition amongst our internet providers we will have barely any freedom. Freedom is supposed to be the name of the game in America. Freedom is a very broad term so there is no way of classifying what is free and what isnt free. Freedom encompasses everything around us in our life, including our internet.  In 2005, the FCC or Federal Communications Comission stated in their broadband policy statement that people are given the right too. “Access the lawful internet content of their choice, run applications and use services of their choice, connect thier choice of legal devices that do not harm the network and the allowance of competition amongst networks”. All of these terms I believe to be true of our internet and our freedom, this is how it should be.

To the contrary, People who do not support Net Neutrality say that they could not perceive that these Internet companies would actually start sabotaging their rivals on the battlefield that is the internet business.  Degrading network capabilities and inhibiting acess are restrictions that companies will absolutely do to get ahead in business and there is no doubt in my mind. I believe that companies will do whatever it takes and whatever is necessary to succeed. Network Neutrality is a must, as freedom to choose what we view on the internet, as with all other aspects of life is essential. Net Neutrality will only cause greater competition in the market, compelling internet providers to persuade us by the quality of their product, not their ability to sabotage their opponents.

http://www.sidecutreports.com/2008/11/16/net-neutrality-a-historical-timeline/

This article gave me an excellent chronological timeline portraying network neurtrality. It was very effective in bettering my understanding because it gave me instances of real life events from our past and our present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
This YouTube video comes from a source I believe to be credible, Public knowledge, this video gave a great visual and auditory presentation of the basics of Network Neutrality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxBtteGFfHs&feature=fvst
this video talks about both sides of the argument, furthering my understanding.

Reflection, Barstow Article

Carly Goeller

The Government has an influence over every choice we make. This is a very broad and somewhat inconclusive statement. But when you think about it, our lives may be free, but they really are guided by the structural framework of our government when you sit down and think and think about it. Pertaining to our Media, which is supposed to be a forum where the government can portray themselves, what type of control does the government have? In his article Behind T.V analysts, the pentagons hidden hand, David Barstow addresses this issue. Barstow’s attention is primarily focused on the people we see on T.V, the very broadcasters and analysts we are receiving out news from. Effective in that, if you are going to investigate something, you might as well start from the primary source of our information, those broadcasting it. Upon reading this article I have always trusted the broadcasters I have seen on T.V, but to be quite frank, this article changed my perspective. This made me think of the events following September 11^th, where there was a public up roar against president bush and his decision to go to war. Based on supposed allegations President Bush decided to wage war against the Middle East, because the public never saw any concrete evidence public arousal was at an all time high, this is when I believe the “Behind T.V analysts, The Pentagons Hidden Hand” comes into play. The Government in turn, in an effort to persuade the public opinion, news organizations started using military analysts to support our government and their attempts at reclaiming a proactive stance at the time.  Effective in that of the Authoritative principal, which is the principal that in which people believe and accept what people say purely based upon their distinction. If someone was an ex president, or a retired prominent General, if they told me that area 51 was real than I would believe them, that is essentially what the Government is trying to do here. This is what Barstow says takes place behind the scenes in our media, this article says that the pentagon and our defense programs influence these military analysts and tell them what to say in an effort to obtain public appeal. Now even though this in any other situation may be very conniving and misleading, I do not find it justifiably categorized as that in this situation. Because as a country, we were attacked and we should have responded. But of course that is just my biased opinion and may be influenced by my own personal political view and may not be credible. But in my own words I think it was crucial to regain public approval at the time, because for all of the very brave men and women who fight and risk their lives its is imperative to have a disposition of support, and this cannot be obtained with out public approval. These men and women volunteer their lives, on their own accord, fighting for a belief they feel to be just, so it is our moral obligation to support them. So however misleading the “pentagons hidden hand may be” I have no problem with it.

With regards to my own personal research on this issue, Barstow’s article really sparked my curiosity. I found the following…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABx4fG1ZJL4&feature=related

“We were sent to Iraq on false premise, how can you ever follow a chain of command that is willing to send you to war based on lies” This is an exact quote from the retired veteran himself. I found it incredibly befitting to the topic of the medias portrayal of the war and the prospect of false information given by the government pertaining to the war.

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/2862a49d-66c7-476d-9b35-8115c4831caa.html

I liked this political cartoon because it really shows you how the media decides to share its information. How someone like Justin Beiber is getting more media attention than Osama Bin Ladin. This is troubling because the Public should be more informed about what is going, as discussed in week 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

This is a clip or Barak Obama explaining his disposition towards the war in iraq. This is an example of the government using the media as an affective forum.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts

Another source i found dealt with the exact issue discussed by David Barstow. This article talks about how the military analyst programs are controlled news coverage