Is New News a Problem?

Why is it that more people care more about what happens to celebrities and TV shows than what is happening to peoplr across the globe? I was looking at the CNN “Most Popular” news story listings and what I saw were things like “Can this fading TV show be saved?” and “Hilton drives w/suspended license”, which in my opinion aren’t really important news stories. Apparently most of the people that went to CNN’s website today thought they were important though, passing over any news stories regarding politics or world news.

This New News idea that has shown that people would rather read an "interesting"
story than something that is considered to be news is clearly changing the way in which the media reports the news. Many of the events that the media reports on nowadays are what many older people would consider to not be news. Is the everyday person beginning to grow tired of hearing about what is going on in the world and becoming obsessed with seemingly insignificant stories designed simply for entertainment? Hopefully people in America will soon come to their senses and at least pay some attention to the important events that are happening in this country and around the world.

Something Different

A lot of us (including me) have had some solid posts, but almost all of the stories have been sardonic and cynical. Nothing wrong with that, I love being mean. However, reading this CNN news article kind of made my heart melt a little and made me take a step back and say, "word.. word".

Click here

The article shows the simple joys of childhood between a pair of baby orangutans and a pair of tigers. They play with each other and hang out; and when they're done that, they cuddle up and chill. Unbeknownst to these little critters is that as they grow older, they will become hostile towards one another and will no longer have mad chill sessions. In fact, the tigers will be wanting to eviscerate the orangutans and eat them, whilst the orangutans will have the urge to fling projectile feces at the tigers.

I see this as a metaphor for the world. In our younger years, we have nothing but innocent demeanor and simply wish to play with each other. As we grow older, we want nothing more than to eviscerate and fling poo at one another. Instead of seeing the world as it is and taking pleasure in its fruits, we want to alter and change it to how we want to see it. And since nearly everyone has a dogmatic view of what they believe, we will not stop the constant bickering. This truth has always bothered me and I have only went along with it to conform. I feel sad now. I think I need a hug.

Top Stories?

So I might be totally wrong here, but I have always thought of CNN to be a legitimate news source. One of the few that could be counted upon to deliver at least for the most part reliable stories. Important articles on what is taking place throughout our nation, with our government, and the rest of the world are the usual topics one would expect to see from a source such as this.

It is for this reason that today I was quite surprised when I visited their page providing up to date "breaking news", the main story of Anna Nicole Smith, which has been everywhere and not too surprising, was not the most unimportant and shocking. To the left of the major headlines is CNN's "Top Stories" column. Here are a few examples of what I saw: "Girl can stack and unstack 12 cups in 5.3 seconds", "Bobby Brown get out of jail card will cost $19,000", "Eatery's burger calories equal 5 of Mickey D's". These were just a few examples. I wouldn't of been surprised to find these stories under Most Popular on the next tab over, but not in Top Stories. You would think with everything going on in Iraq, Africa, our government and all around the world, there would be something that should be considered breaking news over how many seconds it takes a girl to stack cups.

I guess this goes back to the question of what is news and who sets the media agenda? I know that people want to hear about things that are somewhat entertaining, but as John Stewart stated on the Crossfire episode viewed in class, there is a place for news to be made fun of and for entertainment stories such as these to be discussed. It is the responsibility of our "legitimate" news sources to report to us what is really important, what is really breaking news. I think that this is a prime example of this type of situation. Of a so called legitimate news source leaning too far towards entertainment.

http://www.cnn.com/

After reading Sarah's post on Africa and Iraqs monopoly of American media attention, I wanted to take a look at another section of the world falling by the wayside now that the gaze of the media has been averted; Latin America. For those who scarcely remember the day when the middle east was not the focal point of U.S. news outlets, it was once our neighbors to the south that dominated the airwaves in the same fashion that the Islamic world now does. One plight of South America in particular that has grown exponentially since 9/11 is the drug trade. American money follows American interests, and as more and more money is poured into military intervention and the information trade, there are more and more cracks for drug dealers and cartels to slip through. Most recently, failure of the U.S. to lend more major and steady support to both Mexican and Colombian anti-drug task forces has led to two major developments, a) the greater internationalization of drug smuggling and money laundering by Mexican cartels and b) greater fluidity and cooperation between Mexican smugglers and FARC, Colombian seperatists and large cocaine suppliers. In addition, recent U.S. restrictions on consumer purchase of psuedophedrine, the key ingredient of home methamphetamine production, has led Mexican cartels to claim production and distribution rights, and the massive profits that accompany it. I call upon the major media outlets to set aside their pursuit of only stories which grasps the publics most immediate thirst and broaden their perspectives in the name of bringing attention to problems on our own soil currently suffering at the hands of an Iraq hungry public.

The Occassional Ignorance of the U.S.

I haven't been too aware of what's going on in the world of news this week due to the chaos that is college. So I went online today to see if I could find a story to write about. What I found was a story that due to it's placement on the website made it seem as though it were not important. This story is called, "Hundreds hurt in crossfire of fierce battles in Mogadishu." This got me thinking, people tend to concentrate on the war in Iraq and often times miss things that are just as important, or even on occassion, more so.

The media plays a role in this because I can honestly say that this is one of the first stories I have seen that deal with the ongoing crisis in Africa. The media updates Americans daily on how many soldiers have died that day, and how many bombings there were in Iraq, but in my experience they haven't said anything about the "more than 430 people, the vast majority of them civilians" whom were injured in this attack. It seems that the media has a tendency to cover things that involve Americans. Africa is being torn apart by civil war and disease, and that is not as important as "car bomb kills worshippers." The media needs to take charge and cover the terror that is Africa to help make people more aware that there is still trouble in Mogadishu and in Uganda. We rely on the media to tell us what is important in world news, and if they don't do their job, who will?

Satellite merger...are you Sirius?

For the past month or so, rumors have been circulating about a possible merger between the two giants of satellite radio: XM and Sirius. If these two companies were to become one entity, it would for all intents and purposes provide them with a monopoly on the satellite radio broadcast market. However, would such a monopoly be such a big deal? Fox News states that "...as mobile technology in the United States advances, XM and Sirius are hoping the FCC will consider satellite radio as part of the broader industry of delivering music and other content through mobile devices, such as cell phones...".

In an effort to persuade the FCC and the Department of Justice to approve the merge, the main tactic used by these companies will be to minimize the role of satellite radio in the grand scheme of things. In their summary of "what's in the major US newspapers", Slate Magazine portrays this tactic in greater detail. "Although there are obviously concerns that letting the two unite would create a monopoly, the companies will argue they face plenty of competition for the public's ears with MP3 players, Internet radio, and mobile phones."

The next question that must be asked is whether the FCC is going to go for it. On the one hand, there is "On The Media". One of their stories this week would seem to suggest that despite some of the obvious obstacles in their path, Sirius and XM will be able to pull it off. On the other hand, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has been heard to suggest the satellite radio will be treated in the same manner as satellite television and that approval of the merger is not likely.

What does this mean to us? There are two possible outcomes in this scenario. If the merger passes, it could mean a changing of the face of satellite radio and satellite media in general, as well as a change in media legislation across the board. Another possibility is that the FCC will reject the merger. If the FCC rejects the merger outright, then these two companies will continue to lose money competing with iPod and free radio at such a rate that they will become bankrupt. Regardless of whether you like "old news", "new news" or "no news", this merger could have a giant impact on how you get your music.
For further reading on this topic, check out Business Week.

Where is the line drawn?

I was channel surfing today as a stumbled upon the channel 5 news report. I stopped to watch about a mother and father who had lost a child to the neighbors dog. The dog had not been tied and had been roaming around freely. Just as this family's child was walking home, the child was attacked and killed by the dog. This event caught television attention and quickly swarmed by the media, and as the reporters began to ask the family questions I couldn't help but put myself in the situation of the mother and father who had just lost a child. The reporters asked questions such as, How do u feel? Do you resent your neighbors? How are dealing with the lost of your child? Is their anything that you wish you did differently? I couldn't help but think that they were possibly crossing a line by asking such questions so immediately. Which draws me to my point that maybe there are questions that you just shouldn't ask. That the media could possible take in a more moral account of the news they are processing. Drawing a distinct line between what is actually news and what is really just being vindictive to ask.

Cute Kittens Outdo 800 Contractor Casualties

I was browsing through the Boston Channel 5 News website today to find something to write on for my blog piece. Scrolling down the page, I noticed that they had an entire section on the website devoted to “Irresistible News”. Curious, I opened the link to find headlines such as “Social Dancing Banned in New York” and “Costumes for Cats A Felony?” Then, on the right hand side of the page was a section labeled “The Most Viewed Stories” and two of the four stories listed were “Clothes Drying in Oven May Have Sparked Fire” and “Cutest Kitten Winner and Finalists”. On top of that, all of the top headline stories were, in my opinion, fluff topics such as the jackpot in MassMillions lottery, the upcoming Oscars, and the Anna Nicole Smith trial. The only decent news report was about the 800 contractors who have been killed in Iraq thus far and their generally unaccounted casualties.

It maddens me to think that a cute kitten would outdo the importance of civilian casualties in Iraq. This returns back to the idea of new news and no news, but I simply find it upsetting what the American population sees as something worth their time looking up and the fact that the media is quick to feed the public that entertainment. Yet, is this emergence of new news found only in the United States? How do other countries view the role of media and news reporting? I find that the BBC International News website consistently reflects stories of importance. The only entertainment orientated article I found when I looked online today was about the creation of a cricket shaped "Batmobile" made in India – but since out of all the stories on the page the fact that that article is the only fluff story, does that indicate something about American’s concern for international affairs, let alone national problems? Yet, looking at a main newspaper in Russia called Arguementi i Facti, there seems to be just as much an even amount of “real” news pieces versus fluff entertainment topics. To be noted though, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia formulated many of its capitalist enterprises after American models, the newspaper industry one among the formulas. In the end, is American journalism a model approach that the rest of the world looks up to, or are we leading only ourselves into an age of apathy for “real” news? Yes, I know this blog has many questions, but I know that right now, I simply can not offer any answers.

The Boston Channel 5 News
BBC International News
Аргюменты и Факты

Possible Repeal of 2002 War Authorization?

According to today's Washington Post, Senate Democratic leaders are drawing up a proposal to unveil next week repealing the Iraq war authorization of 2002, due to it being outdated. However, they are torn within the party about how to proceed with this binding legislation. Some don’t want to have to waste money funding the debate, fearing it will receive fire from Republicans saying that the Democrats aren’t supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush's war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.
Putting a more restrictive authorization on the war would give more time for troops to train and be fully equipped for battle, halting the time of sending the 21,500 more gradually. This proposal would call for troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as March 31, 2008.
Senior Democratic aides said the proposed resolution would be sent directly to the Senate floor for action, without committee review, possibly as an amendment to a homeland security bill scheduled for debate next week. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.
Although we see articles in today’s papers about discussion within Congress to slow down the Bush administrations’ plans, this one has some teeth to it since this resolution is the first to be binding instead of non-binding.
I think this story is important enough for readers to stay in tune to. “No news” people will probably not read this, but as dry as it is, it is necessary if one is trying to figure out the media’s agenda to present this wordy information in an accurate manner. I will be following this resolution to see how it holds up next week. Keeping strong public policy with the Democrats is necessary right now for any changes to happen in regards to solving this dilemma with the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201743.html

Anna Nicole's...Death Fridge??

Just when we all thought the worst had passed in the over-the-top media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, along came the reports that her fridge could have been her ultimate downfall. Reporters from the tabloids to the major news stations like CNN have been going through the contents found in Anna Nicole's small fridge in her bedroom in the Bahamas and trying to "analyze" just how these things could have played a role in her death. There were pictures shown of and considerable air time given to the "slim fast" and "methadone" found there, on both Fox News and CNN (this story available as part of a Comedy Central clip*).

It would be one thing for the lower level tabloid magazines and internet sites to report on this, but CNN? Thankfully, they did not spend much time actually talking about Anna Nicole Smith. Unfortunately, they instead featured the headline "The Fridge Factor: What It Says About You," (CNN) and proceeded to launch into a discussion of what the contents of your fridge can say about your lifestyle and what kind of person you are. And as if that wasn't enough, they decided to take a look in the CNN break room fridge, where they discovered "lots of milk" for all the coffee they drink...wow. Is anyone else annoyed by this ludicrous attempt at "news"? First Anna Nicole's "Death Fridge," then the break room fridge at CNN? What ever happened to real news?



* Unfortunately, the clip of this CNN story, featured on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, is no longer available on the Comedy Central website. This was where I originally got the information for this post. I have found a blog, the Huffington Post, which has the clip on it as part of a post on the story. I did not use the information in the Huffington Post article in writing this post, I only use it as a place to view the Comedy Central clip.

"We've Got Big Balls"

“We’ve Got Big Balls” is a clever title that caught my eye as I was looking over “Foxnews.com”. However the story it contains is that of a very serious matter. In Surabaya, Indonesia a gusher of mud has erupted and it devastating anything that is within close proximity. Tons of hot noxious mud has poured out from this hole in the ground covering anything that lies in its path. Some twenty-five factories have been abandoned because they are covered with over thirty feet of mud. 11,000 people have been forced to leave their villages to find a place where they may seek refuge.

This so called “mud volcano” is somewhat common to the area due to the fact that this certain land falls between fault lines. Now where could this title of “We’ve got Big Balls” come into play? Well, the National Task force that is dealing with this crisis has come up with a solution. They are to drop hundreds of concrete balls, some weighing in excess of half a ton, into the “mud volcano”. If projected correctly the mud flow will be halted by a staggering 70%.

To be honest, the only reason I looked at this news story was because of the title. It just stuck out to me because it was on the front page of “Foxnews.com”. Maybe the news has to do this to make people aware that disasters happen in other parts of the world and not only the United States. Most US citizens, I wouldn’t call them ignorant, but naive to the fact that there are a lot worse situations occurring around the world than that of, god forbid, high gas prices. I think it is kind of sad that I, myself, had to find this news out by being tricked by a catchy title. But if this is what news stations and online-news have to do to make people aware, it will work, or it did for me anyway.

Another Example of Media Bias

Yesterday Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain, announced that he would be withdrawing 1,600 troops from southern Iraq by having them return home from their rotation and not replacing them. There are currently 7,100 British troops in Iraq, which is down from the over 40,000 troops that Britain had there at the beginning of the war. Denmark is also planning to remove its 460 troops from Iraq that are currently under the command of the British by August of this year. The Bush administration has said that this is merely an example of a success in Iraq, as the Iraqi security forces are going to take over control of the region.

A CNN article that came out yesterday showed the administration’s opinion of the situation, but it also showed the reaction of some members of the US Congress. CNN reported that Rep. Nancy Pelosi said that Blair's decision "confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people" about Bush's decision to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 21,000. It also reported the reaction of House Minority Leader John Boehner, who said that this is “is one more sign that the new strategy to stabilize Baghdad deserves a chance to succeed.” The article also touched on Ted Kennedy’s reaction to the news, who called Prime Minister Blair’s decision “a stunning rejection of President Bush's high risk Iraq policy.”

On the other hand, a Fox News article that came out yesterday that was covering the same subject had an entirely different take on the subject. This article simply stated over and over again how this was a good sign and a model for what the coalition wants to do with the rest of the country. They used several quotes from Tony Blair to justify this point and said that the Iraqi Prime Minister had agreed to the pullout. There was only one line that touched on the possibility of this not being a positive event, which stated “Yet as more countries draw down or pull out, it could create a security vacuum if radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stirs up trouble.” CNN may have a liberal bias, but at least it acknowledged all sides of the story and briefly explained each side. All Fox News did was give us a one sentence mention of the possible negative effect without even addressing the reaction of the US Congress, and it completely left out the possibility that Blair could simply be withdrawing the British troops because of the antiwar sentiment that is widespread in Britain (something that some Democrats in the US have proposed).

CNN article

Fox News article

The Government who cried wolf?

An "On the Media" segment discusses a new form of IED that is supposedly being supplied by Iran. They are named, "explosively formed penetrators" or EFP's. Many critics are saying that they seem to be having flashbacks to 2002 when Michael Gordon, a chief military correspondent for the New York Times, wrote an article about the supposed aluminum tubes being acquired by Saddam Hussein for weapons of mass destruction; hence the reason for war with Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney actually quoted from Gordon's article when answering questions about the need of a preemptive strike on Iraq. Now we are being told by the same guy (Gordon) that "unnamed sources" are telling him that these EFP's have a strong connection with Iranian groups such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the Quds force.
One critic, Michael Massing, has this to say, "And lo and behold, February 10th, in the same column of the newspaper, the same slot as the earlier Gordon/Miller story, we have another story smelling very similarly as having been planted by the U.S. government and very much promoting its bellicose intentions toward a nation in the Middle East. As well, it had very few qualifiers like the earlier story. It talked about civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies providing specific details to support their case."
Is this Gordon character being used as a pawn by the white house to further a cause to go to war with Iran to promote more war profiteering by political elites? Or is Iran trying to push America into war and possibly pull the U.S. too far into the middle east, resulting in an overstretched American military?

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/02/16/01

Interesting Reporting Verses That Of Useful

Most know the ‘Good Morning America’ host Diane Sawyer, she is a political correspondent that over the years has contributed quality work to investigative reporting. Her interviews take her to foriegn countries such as North Korea. Sawyer, in recent travels spoke with the Syrian leader Mr.Assad, she sat down with him in a eye opening interview where they dicussed numourous things including how to avert a civil war in Iraq. To this Mr. Assad said, “the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if approached”. Diane Sawyer asks tough questions and makes for very interesting reports, but the issue is when one takes in to account the things that these leaders are saying in interviews as such; verses the truths and happenings that they are actually presenting to their own people for their own self interests. What does this mean to the American public and are they benefiting from these reports and do they cross lines that should be left to the diplomats rather than a general news reporter to question these serious issues.

On Feburary 13, 2007, Diane interviewed Iranian President Ahmadinjad as one of the first Americans to do so. Ahmadinejad, is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration. Mr. Ahmadinejad spent several minutes in the interview denying facts and presenting a beauty pageant like view on world peace. Diane asked about whether or not Iran is sending in weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. To this he used the phrase “shy away from conflict” and goes on to use words like "dialogue and logic" in reference to supposedly not having anything to do with the weapons crossing borders. Come to find out, Diane had evidence of these weapons to which proved with serial numbers that Iran weapons had been found in the hands of Iraq insurgents from as recently as December 2006. This man who “shies away from conflict” got fairly heated when discussing the idea that the UN and especially America should leave the region as soon as possible. He also pointed out that America is pointing their finger at the region and not accomplishing any good, not a single moment did he have an answer that could give any sort of conflict resolution to the region though.

It seems like a lot of talk with out a lot of answers. The Democracy that we have in America allows us to have reporters asking foreign leaders these questions. One could think that it is oversteping boundaries when asking the leader of a country that supplies weapons that are killing our armed forces on a daily basis how he feels about peace. This same man Amadinejad denies the holocaust. Is this kind of reporting for just the shock value to get ratings, maybe so. Personally sitting down and discussing the world with some of these people that are illogical in the first place, is a waste. What happened to just reporting the facts, like when Diane gave the evidence of the weapons, that has a point, Ahmadinejad is a waste of time; but watch the video to see for yourself. (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2873425)

(http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2849957)

News Headlines Focus on Brittany Shaving Her Head

This week’s celebrity media coverage has moved from the ever popular “death of Anna Nicole” story to “Brittany Spears shaving her head”. This is just another instance of media coverage that is no news. The media is focused on trying to find out what made Brittany shave her head. The fact that she went to a tattoo parlor and got two tattoos after the shearing frenzy is also an interest. The media coverage is tying this all into her checking out of rehab a day before. In every story I have read about this (and believe me, there are a lot) the writer talks about how the beautician wouldn’t shave it for her so Brittany shaved it herself, she got a tattoo of lips on her wrist and one of a pink and another of a pink and white cross. The fact that she was crying and talking about her mom being upset is also in the news. Who cares? This is evidentially news to some people, but why? Is it that any news about Brittany is sellable or is it that people want to know why Brittany cut her hair or is it that we really need a break from the Iraqi war stories? Is our society really so engrossed in celebrity life that this qualifies as breaking news? I really think that there are more important things going on in the world than Brittany shaving her head, the media really just needs to leave the poor girl alone.

Terrorist Media and First Ammendment

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/12/01/03

This interview is with Mark Dubowitz, head of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media. It's a very interesting examination of the First Ammendment. Dubowitz wants to end all transmission that incites terrorist activities and promotes Hezbullah recruitment. Brooke's counter to this is if it imposes on the rights to free speech.

America is a country that prides itself on rights to say what they want without legal consequences. I still don't know how I feel about the interview because this is a very grey area that has been around since the Consitution. In one aspect, I am all for stopping terrorist activities and not allowing them to network into our society; however, by stopping their right to broadcast, it reveals a hypocrisy in our beliefs that bothers me.

There will always be flaws in our beliefs and I have come to terms with that, but if everyone feels the way I do, then who will be left to uphold the black and white of our order?

Gender, Race, or Religion....Why should any of these determine your vote?

In the last few days of checking the news, there has been another common theme that I have encountered in regards to the upcoming race for the next presidency. The Christian Science Monitor in particular has been sporting the headline, will "Race, Gender or Religion effect how you vote?". This question seems a bit odd to me because aren't we supposed to be voting based upon what it is that these candidates stand for, not because of their race, gender or religious beliefs? I don't really understand why if we are such a "politically correct" nation, this question is even being raised?

I feel that any vote that is given purely because of a physical aspect of a candidate is an extremely irresponsible one. One reader stated that "they will continue to vote for candidates who represent their values, regardless of their race, gender or religion", while others stated that these factors will play a role in choosing who they vote for in the coming election. I agree with the first statement. We are Americans and supposed to be voting for whoever we feel will be best for our nation. We are supposed to be voting based on their political agenda, not on what they look like. I don't know if the media is necessarily advocating this, but they are suggesting that these factors should have some impact on how we decide to vote, simply by putting articles like these out there. To me, this is not ok.

The Dead Presidents

Everyone knows that Barack Obama came to UNH last week to speak to the students. In addition, everyone also knows that Hillary Clinton is trying very hard to get the Democratic Presidential nomination before he does. Then there's a problem. While we know a lot about the campaigns of Clinton and Obama, we know very little about the campaigns of other Democratic hopefuls, and even less about the Republican candidates.

For example, while Obama's visit to the Granite State was covered in great detail by all of the newspapers and many radio stations, there have been visits to New Hampshire by a number of other candidates including Clinton and Kucinich. Why were these visits not covered as intensively as the Obama visit? Is there a particular reason only a few candidates are getting all of the media attention? In "On The Media", there was a lot of attention given to this anomaly.

This isn't to say that people don't know who is running for president. If you go to the USA Today website, you can get a complete list of all the potential Presidential candidates. However, if you aren't looking for one of the "front runners" you will have to click on one of two links. You will either find your candidate under the heading "Other Democrats" or "Other Republicans". I will leave you with this thought: is the skew of media coverage going to leave these candidates with no hope, or did the mass media just figure out that they have no hope to begin with?

Anna Nicole Smith...no news...

Earlier last week the media was in a frenzy covering the sudden and unexpected death of Anna Nicole Smith. It seemed as though every other news story took a back burner to this event. Some news events either barely got covered, or did not get covered at all. For example, apparently on the same day there was a hacking attempt into the main servers of the internet. These servers apparently host the defense systems and help run the economy. What I don't understand is how an event that affects the country as a whole was barely covered. Most people did not even know that this had happened until at least a few days after. Yes I understand that Ms. Smith was a public figure, and her death is unfortunate, but I do not believe it should have been the highlight of the news that day. Maybe mention it in the Entertainment newscasts, but not in the nightly news. The crazed astronaut incident also took the #1 spot in the newscasts for a few days as well. These are definetly "no news" storylines. I think that it is okay to have some "no news" stories, but to have them take over the broadcast is not acceptable.

Death in Iraq: News or Entertainment?

Every day viewers are bombarded by images of the War in Iraq – whether it be an in-depth story or else a brief update, coverage of the war is fairly consistent. The media is always spouting new figures of the number of most recently killed U.S. Marines or else a suicide bomber that managed to gouge out a portion of downtown Baghdad. Yet, when it comes to news coverage, whether it be images or audio, how far is too far? How much does the public have the right to know before overstepping moral boundaries?

This week in "On The Media", the commentators addressed this issue to a degree. In the article Friction Tape, they relay audio of the death of a Sergeant Leija recorded by New York Times journalist Damien Cave, who then posted the video on the paper’s website before the Sergeant’s family even knew of the video’s existence. Was this action on the part of the journalist one of blatant disregard to the deceased’s family or a social responsibility to bring the masses news? In the article, Neil Gabler from Fox News Watch commented that, “…I think that journalists have a moral responsibility to the family, obviously, to be sensitive, but they have a professional responsibility to report the news. And there is a public interest here. I don't think that families can be given veto power over the kinds of images that are shown.”

I strongly disagree with Mr. Gabler. I feel that journalists should give a much higher priority to the moral responsibility to the victim’s family than their so-called professional responsibility. Imagine being in the family’s position: having to watch your husband or father or son killed time and time again in front of millions of people simply for the sake of news, to fulfill a quota of stories a journalist needs to create in order to keep his or her job. This is a perfect example of “new news”: corporations know that death sells, and they will capture its event at any cost without regard to the family’s pain and loss. Sergeant Leija’s death was simply an opportunity to sensationalize a story in order to boost the rate of readers for more revenue. Sadly, this method succeeds due to the fact that we live in a nation that thrives off of tragedy and pain, once it does not affect us personally. The mass media simply uses this addiction to increase their own profit and maintain the endless cycle. In this instance, I feel that broadcasting the Sergeant’s death strips away the important reasons as to why he was killed, and warps his death into pure entertainment. To preserve the legitimate memory of Sergeant Leija, I thoroughly believe that his family should have had a say as to whether or not his last moments could be shown to the world.

Top 20 Count-Down

Anyone who has ever watched a football game knows the National Football League’s Theme Song. The loud trumpets and booming drums, pump up people to watch a competitive game of football. But, would you feel different if that particular song was put to another competition? “The Glenn Beck Program”, which airs on CNN, did just that.

The show aired a segment that was titled “Top Twenty Dangerous Dictators”. The segment began with a role call of the top twenty dangerous dictators in the world, and the voice that was speaking was very similar. The voice was extremely similar to that of the “NFL Films” speaker. It is a deep voice that is very popular within the world of football. It was very comical because, it was like watching a highlight reel comparing two NFL teams, but in this case it was dangerous dictators.

I thought it was pretty funny, and an innovative way to present some serious material. The program put the dictators in an almost competition to see who could be the most dangerous in the world. Towards the end of the count-down, the voice stopped and began to give more in-depth information about the last three dictators. Sayyid Ali Khamenei was number three on the count-down because 2/3 of his people oppose his government. The next, ranking at number two, was Kim Jong-Il for his bizarre political standings in Korea. And now, the number one most dangerous dictator is; Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. He has killed two-thousand plus of the people who are against his regime.

I felt like I was watching a segment from “The Colbert Report” or “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”. The piece that was aired on “Glenn Beck” represented how the “Old News” stations are trying to incorporate “New News” programming. The segment was funny but it also was able to get the message across to the viewer. This is the “New News” syndrome that is starting to flow over into the mainstream media.

Kucinich...Who's He?

With the election coming up in the near future and presidential hopefuls joining the race almost every day, it is time to start looking at the candidates. At this stage in the game, that isn't very hard to do. The candidates are already getting prime media coverage, some even before they have announced their entry into the race. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton especially are at the focus of the coverage, leaving the American people to assume that they are the only two Democratic candidates worth noticing. In fact, this seems to be exactly the attitude that news stations and reporters have embraced. Take Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich, for example...yes, he is running again. But has he received any air time? All the press and publicity go to Obama and Clinton, and the media simply pay him no attention.

An interesting interview by OTM (On the Media) talks with both Kucinich and his former communications director Jeff Cohen about how the media treated Kucinich in the 2004 election and how their opinions of him appear unaltered since then. According to the two, the reporters covering the election allowed their own opinions of the candidates to dominate their coverage and their very public attitudes about Kucinich. As Cohen stated, "I think that the reasons have to do with elitism on the part of the press corps, that they're too important to be mere reporters. They're too important to report what happened on the campaign trail that day. They're wise men. They're pundits. They're analysts. [They] know better for the American people who's the serious candidate and who isn't (OTM)."

Personally, I had never thought of this idea before, that the reporters themselves had adopted a self-fulfilling prophecy to name in advance who the worthwhile candidates were and ignore those they felt were substandard. After listening to this interview, however, Cohen and Kucinich make noteworthy arguments, and they leave the listeners questioning the trustworthy, dependable reporters they have listened to for so long. This reminds me of the episode of Crossfire where Jon Stewart appeared and hounded the show's hosts for hurting America by playing into the candidates' campaign strategies. As Cohen says in the interview, "It's my attitude that if they don't want to be political reporters covering the different policies and proposals of the candidates, go into something else (OTM)." I think he's right. What do you think?



For more interesting interviews and articles about the media, go to the On the Media website.

Enough Is Enough

I was flipping through the channels a few days ago and all I saw on every news channel was either something about the crazy NASA astronaut or Anna Nicole Smith. Reporting that kind of stuff is okay, but going over it constantly for several days is simply annoying. Isn’t there anything else to talk about that is more important than a former playmate dieing or an astronaut going off the deep end?

They could be reporting truly important events that are occurring across the globe, but instead they choose to report every fact and rumor about these people that they can possibly find over several days. Apparently they believe these are the kind of stories that Americans want to hear about, which may be true since a lot of people in this country are obsessed with what happens in the lives of celebrities. Even Lou Dobbs, the host of the CNN show “Lou Dobbs Tonight” was so annoyed by the continuing coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death that he announced at the beginning of his program that he would not be covering the death of Anna Nicole Smith at all. The media of today simply kills these stories by covering them so thoroughly that it just gets to be an annoyance.

The Facts OR a Spin Zone

These days it is not uncommon to here the phrase media bias, and it is real. One doesn’t have to search very far to find something that speaks volumes of prejudice, without coming out and saying it. Now don’t get me wrong, even the “no spin zone” on Fox will inevitably lean a little right. Today Fox and CNN reported on the North Korea proliferation issue. CNN noted that one observer believes that "It makes the [Bush] administration look very weak at a time when we are dealing with Iraq and Iran, and need to look strong”. On the other hand, Fox News took a more optimistic approach in reporting the story, mentioning that “President George W. Bush hailed the agreement as ‘the best opportunity’ for diplomacy to succeed in ridding the Pyongyang government of all atomic weapons and capabilities”.

In all, CNN’s article noted 3 positive sentiments about the deal, versus 7 criticisms. Contrarily, Fox cited 6 to 3; positives to negatives. I can’t help but wonder if people, the “politically unaware” aren’t being swayed by these subliminal messages in the news (not op-ed). The human element in the news constantly has me questioning whether it is even possible for there to be straight news. News is not supposed to be biased, it is supposed to be the presentation of facts.



(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251618,00.html”

“http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/nkorea.talks/index.html”

Obama at UNH

As we all know Barack Obama had a meet and greet at UNH on Monday night. NECN news covered the event on their 10:00 pm news segment, but unfortunatley the media coverage did not focus on his stance about political issues. Instead, the reporters named his as charismatic and charming, but not much more. The only political matter that was hit on was that he opposes the war and he is using this to distance himself from Hillary Clinton as well as define himself. NECN also focused on his lack of experience and showed a clip of Obama saying "if you are voting for experience in Washington, you won't be voting for me" (this is probably not the exact quote, but close). In another news segement over the weekend, the coverage of Hillary Clinton was about the same, there was no news on her political stance, only that she was greeting citizens, looked well, and was humurous.

From these two instances, I believe that the media is falling into the "no news" sector of reporting way too early in the campaign for the most prestigeous job in our country. Perhaps it is the case that Clinton and Obama are not stating their stance on political matters, other than the safe "opposing of the war", or perhaps the media thinks viewers are more interested in how the candidates act and look. Either way, for those of you who went to the Obama meet and greet I would like to know if he did indeed take any stances on political matters other than the war or if the media is correct and there is nothing more to report.

Is "24" Hurting the Military?

It is known that the media has an effect on people and the ways in which they act and think. To what extent though? Recently on the news, there have been some concerns with the very popular TV show 24, in which the hero Jack Bauer must stop a "conspiracy which perils the nation". Some top military and civilian experts are concerned that the show is encouraging real life interrogators to go too far when questioning terrorist suspects. They are also afraid that the show is hurting their efforts to train recruits in effective interrogation techniques, and making the US look bad. Others call these accusations ludicrous.

I'm torn on the subject. I would like to hope that the people hired by our government to keep our nation safe would not be so easily influenced by a television show in how they live their real lives. Every person is different though, and I know that it is not impossible for things like this to happen. What do you think? Can a TV show and the influence of the media really effect the way that American interrogators and other people are able to do their jobs?

MMORPG, a deviation from life

A form of media that has made an underground revolution is Massive Multi-Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG). For those not familiar with this, it is an online-only game. Some of you probably heard of the Everquest (Evercrack) scandals where people have committed suicide or divorced over these types of games. There is an On The Media discussion about a rising new MMORPG called "Second Thought".

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/09/22/07


If you listened to it, they talk about how immersive and "more beautiful" the game is than real life. People spend a lot of time and money to build upon a virtual world and soon they begin to get siphoned into this game. The virtual world then becomes their "real world".

While not everyone is an addict, it still poses a threat, similar to crystal meth or heroin. I, myself, play World of Warcraft (MMORPG) but I don't consider myself an addict; and if I am, I'm a functioning addict, at best.

This genre of gaming has become the new opiate for video gamers and is the future of all gaming due to its demand and popularity, however, the consequences are more dire.

Some links/sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/28/earlyshow/living/caught/main510302.shtml
- more in depth coverage of an actual MMORPG addict