Photoshop in a blue sky on a snowy day because a prof. tells you to?
Join the discussion.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Playin' Favorites
A recent study released by Medill Reports Chicago exemplifies the media's roll in determining who will be the future President of the United States. Think the media doesn't play favorites? Think again.
Shouldn't he have received the same amount of coverage as the other two Democratic leaders? Objective, fair and balanced news and reporting huh? Right. Try again.
Andrew Rojecki, professor of political communications at the University of Illinois Chicago, is worried about the American public's ability to make an informed decision "because the media has given minimal coverage of the candidates' stances on political issues." Right-o. And Dewey would agree. "Bottom-up" he'd say.
Finally, the article quotes some disturbing statistics:
To make an informed decision, I don't need to know how many racial attacks Clinton's advisors have accidently released or how many Kennedy endorsements Obama's gotten. Give me their policies and their stances - show me how they can lead. Let me have my own opinion.
It's less than a week from Super Tuesday and the numbers are in: 29 percent for Hillary Clinton, 27.8 percent for Barack Obama and 6.1 percent for John Edwards.
That's not the election results, but the breakdown of campaign stories about the leading Democratic candidates for president. Trouble is, some observers say, the amount of news coverage affects the amount of votes each campaign gathers.
Whoa. No wonder Edwards dropped out of the race. The media didn't play any attention to him - just because he wasn't bickering with the former First Lady. Sad day in the media, don't you think?
Shouldn't he have received the same amount of coverage as the other two Democratic leaders? Objective, fair and balanced news and reporting huh? Right. Try again.
Andrew Rojecki, professor of political communications at the University of Illinois Chicago, is worried about the American public's ability to make an informed decision "because the media has given minimal coverage of the candidates' stances on political issues." Right-o. And Dewey would agree. "Bottom-up" he'd say.
Finally, the article quotes some disturbing statistics:
According to “The Invisible Primary,” a report published by The Project for Excellence in Journalism in October 2007 that looked at media coverage during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign, while only 15 percent focused on the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals.
To make an informed decision, I don't need to know how many racial attacks Clinton's advisors have accidently released or how many Kennedy endorsements Obama's gotten. Give me their policies and their stances - show me how they can lead. Let me have my own opinion.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Losing coverage of higher-edu.
Reporters on higher-education are getting pulled off this topic, due to the paycuts experienced by many print media outlets, to make sure other issues are covered.
However, I think John Dewey would agree with Richard Whitmire, who lists reasons why higher-education still needs some coverage. Check it out.
However, I think John Dewey would agree with Richard Whitmire, who lists reasons why higher-education still needs some coverage. Check it out.
Media follows public opinion - sell out?
Our society has a massive appetite for drama, and little for reality. We read about Britney Spears when we need to read about Afghanistan. And the media, which has the mandate -- and the constitutional right -- to lead us from this abyss, are all too often not doing so. Media, which once led public opinion, now all too often follow it.
A startling, and true, commentary on media today stated by Bill Dwyre from the LA Times, describes what is becoming an all too familiar trend.
Going against Walter Lippman's Public Opinion, which claimed public opinion must be guided, and John Dewey's belief that mass communication should educate the public so that, as a community and as individuals, people can form their own opinions, Dwyre's view of media today claims that it neither serves as an educational tool nor a guide for public opinion. The media follows what the already-formed public opinion demands.
It's true. The balance between entertainment and traditional hard news is faltering. As the television stations, like CNN and Fox, have experts discussing the failing US economy, this critical information is interrupted by the breaking news that Patriot Quarterback Tom Brady has been seen with his foot in a cast. Suddenly everybody's asking, "what could this mean for the Superbowl?"
Shouldn't we be much much more concerned about how quickly the Dow is falling? Should we expect and demand the media give us the tools to make an informed decision about how to survive a possible recession instead of how to place our Superbowl bets?
I definitely think so. Give me reality over drama, please.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Independent media politics. What?
We've all seen it - the questionable relationship between the media and the political world, especially now that the '08 race to the White House is becoming increasingly critical.
Kelly McBride, ethics blogger for Poynter, wrote an article about how an independent relationship can be compromised by a campaign's use of a reporter's positive feedback on their candidate:
However, isn't this relationship already compromised by their traditional announcement of their endorsements of political candidates, such as the Des Moines Register's endorsement of both Clinton and McCain before the caucus took place.
Should a major media outlet be allowed to endorse candidates? Isn't that potentially influencing instead of merely educating? Isn't that removing their unbiased position that journalists are supposed to maintain?
A journalistic obligation to inform the public? Yes. A journalistic obligation to ruin the supposedly independent relationship between politics and the media? No way.
Kelly McBride, ethics blogger for Poynter, wrote an article about how an independent relationship can be compromised by a campaign's use of a reporter's positive feedback on their candidate:
"When favorable stories about a political candidate are used by a campaign or a
political action committee to generate support, or when the opposition uses
negative stories to tear down a candidate, it compromises the perception that
the reporter and the newsroom are independent."
However, isn't this relationship already compromised by their traditional announcement of their endorsements of political candidates, such as the Des Moines Register's endorsement of both Clinton and McCain before the caucus took place.
Should a major media outlet be allowed to endorse candidates? Isn't that potentially influencing instead of merely educating? Isn't that removing their unbiased position that journalists are supposed to maintain?
"Despite research challenging the effectiveness of endorsements, many news
organizations embrace the tradition because, as they see it, endorsing
candidates is a journalistic
obligation to readers.
'We have such a rare opportunity as residents but also as journalists to
listen to these candidates,' said Monitor editor Felice Belman [...] 'Why
wouldn't we give readers the opportunity to tell them what we've learned?'"
- Mallary Jean Tenore, Centerpiece
blogger for Poynter
A journalistic obligation to inform the public? Yes. A journalistic obligation to ruin the supposedly independent relationship between politics and the media? No way.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Wikipedia fake
As reported by Media Ethics, a Wikipedia editor is a fake. Surprised? He used Catholicism for Dummies as a resource for entries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
