This was an eye-opening and interesting look into the media. There were many statistics and studies done on the media I didn't even know they conducted. One of the interesting points I found was the growth in online news. I knew, of course, that newspapers were a dying breed and that many people used their tablets/iPhones/SmartPhones/etc. for surfing the web. However, I had no idea how much of that was attributed to online news websites like Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and the like. The online news industry grew 17.2% in 2011, outdoing the 4.5% of Network TV, and the 1% of Local TV, Audio, and Cable TV. Along the same lines, Facebook and Twitter are beginning to surface as sources of news also. At this point social networking only accounts for 9% of people's news sources. Twitter users were nearly split between the sense that they would get this news elsewhere (43%) and that they would not (39%).A majority, 56%, of those who get news recommendations from Facebook say they think they would have gotten that news from somewhere else. Only a third, 34%, said they would not have seen it otherwise.
The decline of newspapers was no secret. The numbers and rate at which print has dropped was quite astounding. Newspapers seem to have no hope in sight. They aren't able to come up with a viable game plan against network news. Network news channels such as ABC, CBS, and NBC are growing rather rapidly. All three saw an increase in revenue and viewership. This is pretty much the same song for magazines who've not seen an increase since 2009. I'm not surprised by these statistics necessarily, just how drastic they are. The digital age is rapidly taking over all aspects of American life with no hope for those who would like to keep things simple and old timey.
I thought this site was very interesting and informative. I learned quite a bit about the contrasts of the different medias of today and how "digitized" we are really becoming. There is so much on this site and the charts and graphs lay out the statistics and numbers so you can understand and learn about the media of today. Overall, I enjoyed writing this particular blog and getting to work with this website.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Ethical Decision Making
Ethics is a multi-dimensional concept, muddied by each person's morals and way of thinking. Ethics are based on a multitude of things like upbringing, past experiences, learned concepts, and perception of issues. A person's ethics is not something one paper/blog could cover because everyone looks at them through slightly different glasses. Some rose, some a variation of the color. Many have the same color, if however different shades.
In the case of Accuracy and Fairness I read four of the case studies. I read the one about the little girl who received bone marrow from a man with a sullied past, the car that sank in the canal, abortion trucks, and a story on a little girl who visits her dad on death row. Each of these stories prove a vast difference of opinions as far as the world of ethics goes.In the case of the story about the little girl who received the bone marrow the ethical question was whether the man who donated past, was relevant to the story. The news station chose to air his past. The mother of the little girl and two letters to the editor shamed them from doing so. My personal ethics say, Why in the world would it matter where this guy came from or what he'd done in the past? He's obviously atoned for it and we as other civilians are not his judge. A second ethics question would be how to report accurately without exposing the public to graphic images or sounds. Such was the case in both the story about a woman who called a dispatcher in a panic because she'd veered of the road and her car had gone into a canal and was sinking; and a pro-life group called The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform. In the woman in the car's case the family requested the tape not be played. This was ignored by two TV stations and a snippet was played anyway. I agree with the sentiment from the family that the call shouldn't be played. The newscasters gave a good rendition of what happened. The family asked the call not be released. The least you can do for a grieving family is respect their wishes. The pro-life group's story was much the same. Viewers don't want to see graphic images. Therefore, the newscaster/journalist can give a good overview of the story without shocking the viewer with the images. People can research on their own and go to The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform's website and they have all the images, and even videos, there. Finally, ethics can take a turn for what you see as sound moral ground. The final story covered a four-year-old little girl whose mother takes her to visit her dad on death row. The questions was posed whether or not it was ethical. There was controversy presented in the story by a phsycologist and a family liason for the prison with opposing viewpoints. One said it was ethical and the other said it wasn't. In a case such as this, it was presented in the best possible form for the viewer to make up their own mind.
The next dimension of this ethical sphere is conflict of interest. Two case studies jump to the forefront for being good examples of problems faced each day by journalists. Cokie's Conflict of Interest and To Love and Work In Denver. Cokie's Conflict is about a journalist who took a position on a volunteer force for President Bush's cabinet. She remained an employee of ABC News while doing so. The problem presented was could Cokie remain a true journalist, and loyal to the president while she served on this force. The same issue arose when a journalist married a man who ran for governor. I think each of these problems center around the same basic issue. Trust. ABC was willing to give Cokie a chance to prove she could be a faithful journalist, and a supporter to our 43rd president. However, in the case of Lesley Dahlkemper and Mike Freeley, the Colorado Radio Station KCFR did not give her the same chance. The station was concerned how it would look to the public if Lesley were to cover anything regarding Freeley. Rightfully so. In the analysis it states Dahlkemper would have had no way of proving she could be balanced. I disagree. They never gave her a chance. Understandably appearances must be kept up so as not to lose the trust of the public. However, if she was seen to have any leniency, they could have removed her.
Deception is the third issues presented. Is it ethical for journalists to use deceptions(hidden cameras, undercover work, "test" theories, etc.) to obtain a true and important story? A case in which a undercover journalist, faked being a mortician, snuck onto Dover AFB to get actual death totals from Desert Storm, was examined. He wanted to get real numbers on the death toll and had exhausted every other avenue. This journalist did right by the public because he wanted the real death tolls and would do whatever it took to get them. Undercover work does expose some very lengthy conspiracies and potentially harmful subjects. But the way that it is done and to what extent has a fine balance. As stated in one of the articles covering hidden cameras, this should only be done by experienced and reliable journalists. Despite this, how would you determine that? And what's to say a newer journalist has compromised morals just because they're new?
Diversity follows in contrast to deception. Diversity is a widespread issue. One of the articles presented is the inclusion of gay marriage in the news as being very diverse. Gay marriage is very controversial. However, it adds to the diversity of a paper and news corporation to add controversial issues to the public's reading and perception. But how diverse can you be without offending and losing readers?
Online ethics have become an ever present problem. How do you use the information you come across ethically, accurately, and without plagerising? Moreover, how do you link that information to the source and ensure that it is an accurate source of information and not shady or containing misleading facts? Linking is the most widely discussed issue ethicswise. Linking different sources to your journalistic reports that is accurate and gives the ability to the reader to research further if desired. Including linking, two other problems that were stated by journalists who took part in a conference of web journalists were anonymous feedback and interactivity. Feedback or facts often are stated quickly and at a rate so fast the journalist can't verify it. Interactivity is also a concern because it can discredit things so quickly by use of opinion instead of reserached facts from viewrs/public.
Photojournalism is a tool used to really connect with the reader/viewer and get them interested. Photojournalism serves a good purpose overall of getting out there for the reader and bringing the story to life. However, if care is not taken, the photos/video can mislead the reader. As was the case with ice boat sailing in MN. The photographer used digital editing and sped the videos and photos up to convey the speed to the viewer who wasn't there. This was a question of ethics because the photos were false and lead the viewer astray. The polar opposite would be the photo run by The Daily Press depicting a 15-year-old boy who'd be shot and robbed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The photo was controversial because the boy was dead and the paper was worried about upsetting readers. The photo and story was run anyway and the intent to help stop these crimes was strengthened by this very real photo.
Without giving ample spotlight to the source, you are considered a plagerizer. An article written by Chip Scanlan shows an interesting point of view to plagerizing I'd not thought of. What actually constitutes plagerism? We know the broad definition, don't use other people's stuff. But what about the details? Such as: Can disk jockeys read the paper on the news since they didn't contribute to it? Can you plagerize yourself if you've written a paper and then use a quote or sentence from it and don't cite it? What if you rewrite a passage from another source, and even though you phrase it in your own words, you don’t acknowledge that the ideas are someone else’s? Would this blog be considered plagerizing since I'm rephrasing and summarizing others work? These are all aspects of the plagerizing rule I'd never looked at; and certainly warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how to respond to plagerizing now. But it would be nice if some further guidelines were published on the matter.
Privacy is one of the biggest concerns of those asked to talk to newscasters and journalists. Whether it be for safety reasons(crime case) or for embarrasment(sex offenders) or you just don't want your dirty laundry being connected to a face. The news industry is a little shaky on this point. Tying back to the story about the little girl who received bone marrow from a convicted man. His privacy was invaded by having his crimes posted in an article with no effect on whether he was in jail or not. In the video provided under this section, on children in a crack house, the cameraman made sure to exclude the children's faces. However, the other two case examples of teen depression and a rape victim were much more invasive. The teens willingly opened up their stories in hopes of helping others. The rape victim had her pictures and name flashed on a screen for an Amber Alert. In both of these cases, I don't believe privacy was violated.
To round out the issue of ethics in journalism, we move to the source/reporter relationships. Several of the articles detailed how the reporters gained their stories. Most were very respectful in obtaining of information and did as was asked by the sources to build trust. However, one ethical issue I had problems with was in the case of a reporter who did a 5 month case study on children with parents who have addictions. She was able to detach from the story so far as to let a 3-year-old starve for 24 hours. I realize the importance of doing stories and getting the research out there. But I just can't go along with watching a baby go hungry. There is a line where the job doesn't come first.
As detailed in the paragraphs above, ethical issues in journalism run rampant and most are subject to personal prefernce. There will probably never be a uniform code under which you could write ethics to uphold in life or journalism. These 9 issues just scratch the surface. They by no means explore every avenue. There really is nothing to fix or say on the matter other than to tell people to follow the rules of your newspaper/news station/radio station/magazine/etc. and go along until you feel it is morally compromising.
In the case of Accuracy and Fairness I read four of the case studies. I read the one about the little girl who received bone marrow from a man with a sullied past, the car that sank in the canal, abortion trucks, and a story on a little girl who visits her dad on death row. Each of these stories prove a vast difference of opinions as far as the world of ethics goes.In the case of the story about the little girl who received the bone marrow the ethical question was whether the man who donated past, was relevant to the story. The news station chose to air his past. The mother of the little girl and two letters to the editor shamed them from doing so. My personal ethics say, Why in the world would it matter where this guy came from or what he'd done in the past? He's obviously atoned for it and we as other civilians are not his judge. A second ethics question would be how to report accurately without exposing the public to graphic images or sounds. Such was the case in both the story about a woman who called a dispatcher in a panic because she'd veered of the road and her car had gone into a canal and was sinking; and a pro-life group called The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform. In the woman in the car's case the family requested the tape not be played. This was ignored by two TV stations and a snippet was played anyway. I agree with the sentiment from the family that the call shouldn't be played. The newscasters gave a good rendition of what happened. The family asked the call not be released. The least you can do for a grieving family is respect their wishes. The pro-life group's story was much the same. Viewers don't want to see graphic images. Therefore, the newscaster/journalist can give a good overview of the story without shocking the viewer with the images. People can research on their own and go to The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform's website and they have all the images, and even videos, there. Finally, ethics can take a turn for what you see as sound moral ground. The final story covered a four-year-old little girl whose mother takes her to visit her dad on death row. The questions was posed whether or not it was ethical. There was controversy presented in the story by a phsycologist and a family liason for the prison with opposing viewpoints. One said it was ethical and the other said it wasn't. In a case such as this, it was presented in the best possible form for the viewer to make up their own mind.
The next dimension of this ethical sphere is conflict of interest. Two case studies jump to the forefront for being good examples of problems faced each day by journalists. Cokie's Conflict of Interest and To Love and Work In Denver. Cokie's Conflict is about a journalist who took a position on a volunteer force for President Bush's cabinet. She remained an employee of ABC News while doing so. The problem presented was could Cokie remain a true journalist, and loyal to the president while she served on this force. The same issue arose when a journalist married a man who ran for governor. I think each of these problems center around the same basic issue. Trust. ABC was willing to give Cokie a chance to prove she could be a faithful journalist, and a supporter to our 43rd president. However, in the case of Lesley Dahlkemper and Mike Freeley, the Colorado Radio Station KCFR did not give her the same chance. The station was concerned how it would look to the public if Lesley were to cover anything regarding Freeley. Rightfully so. In the analysis it states Dahlkemper would have had no way of proving she could be balanced. I disagree. They never gave her a chance. Understandably appearances must be kept up so as not to lose the trust of the public. However, if she was seen to have any leniency, they could have removed her.
Deception is the third issues presented. Is it ethical for journalists to use deceptions(hidden cameras, undercover work, "test" theories, etc.) to obtain a true and important story? A case in which a undercover journalist, faked being a mortician, snuck onto Dover AFB to get actual death totals from Desert Storm, was examined. He wanted to get real numbers on the death toll and had exhausted every other avenue. This journalist did right by the public because he wanted the real death tolls and would do whatever it took to get them. Undercover work does expose some very lengthy conspiracies and potentially harmful subjects. But the way that it is done and to what extent has a fine balance. As stated in one of the articles covering hidden cameras, this should only be done by experienced and reliable journalists. Despite this, how would you determine that? And what's to say a newer journalist has compromised morals just because they're new?
Diversity follows in contrast to deception. Diversity is a widespread issue. One of the articles presented is the inclusion of gay marriage in the news as being very diverse. Gay marriage is very controversial. However, it adds to the diversity of a paper and news corporation to add controversial issues to the public's reading and perception. But how diverse can you be without offending and losing readers?
Online ethics have become an ever present problem. How do you use the information you come across ethically, accurately, and without plagerising? Moreover, how do you link that information to the source and ensure that it is an accurate source of information and not shady or containing misleading facts? Linking is the most widely discussed issue ethicswise. Linking different sources to your journalistic reports that is accurate and gives the ability to the reader to research further if desired. Including linking, two other problems that were stated by journalists who took part in a conference of web journalists were anonymous feedback and interactivity. Feedback or facts often are stated quickly and at a rate so fast the journalist can't verify it. Interactivity is also a concern because it can discredit things so quickly by use of opinion instead of reserached facts from viewrs/public.
Photojournalism is a tool used to really connect with the reader/viewer and get them interested. Photojournalism serves a good purpose overall of getting out there for the reader and bringing the story to life. However, if care is not taken, the photos/video can mislead the reader. As was the case with ice boat sailing in MN. The photographer used digital editing and sped the videos and photos up to convey the speed to the viewer who wasn't there. This was a question of ethics because the photos were false and lead the viewer astray. The polar opposite would be the photo run by The Daily Press depicting a 15-year-old boy who'd be shot and robbed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The photo was controversial because the boy was dead and the paper was worried about upsetting readers. The photo and story was run anyway and the intent to help stop these crimes was strengthened by this very real photo.
Without giving ample spotlight to the source, you are considered a plagerizer. An article written by Chip Scanlan shows an interesting point of view to plagerizing I'd not thought of. What actually constitutes plagerism? We know the broad definition, don't use other people's stuff. But what about the details? Such as: Can disk jockeys read the paper on the news since they didn't contribute to it? Can you plagerize yourself if you've written a paper and then use a quote or sentence from it and don't cite it? What if you rewrite a passage from another source, and even though you phrase it in your own words, you don’t acknowledge that the ideas are someone else’s? Would this blog be considered plagerizing since I'm rephrasing and summarizing others work? These are all aspects of the plagerizing rule I'd never looked at; and certainly warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how to respond to plagerizing now. But it would be nice if some further guidelines were published on the matter.
Privacy is one of the biggest concerns of those asked to talk to newscasters and journalists. Whether it be for safety reasons(crime case) or for embarrasment(sex offenders) or you just don't want your dirty laundry being connected to a face. The news industry is a little shaky on this point. Tying back to the story about the little girl who received bone marrow from a convicted man. His privacy was invaded by having his crimes posted in an article with no effect on whether he was in jail or not. In the video provided under this section, on children in a crack house, the cameraman made sure to exclude the children's faces. However, the other two case examples of teen depression and a rape victim were much more invasive. The teens willingly opened up their stories in hopes of helping others. The rape victim had her pictures and name flashed on a screen for an Amber Alert. In both of these cases, I don't believe privacy was violated.
To round out the issue of ethics in journalism, we move to the source/reporter relationships. Several of the articles detailed how the reporters gained their stories. Most were very respectful in obtaining of information and did as was asked by the sources to build trust. However, one ethical issue I had problems with was in the case of a reporter who did a 5 month case study on children with parents who have addictions. She was able to detach from the story so far as to let a 3-year-old starve for 24 hours. I realize the importance of doing stories and getting the research out there. But I just can't go along with watching a baby go hungry. There is a line where the job doesn't come first.
As detailed in the paragraphs above, ethical issues in journalism run rampant and most are subject to personal prefernce. There will probably never be a uniform code under which you could write ethics to uphold in life or journalism. These 9 issues just scratch the surface. They by no means explore every avenue. There really is nothing to fix or say on the matter other than to tell people to follow the rules of your newspaper/news station/radio station/magazine/etc. and go along until you feel it is morally compromising.
Internet Safety
After reading a few of the articles given in KSOL, I'm not sure what to think about Internet predators. With the outlook that there is realavent danger to kids, I can't say as to whether I think it's a big issue. 10 years ago there was an outbreak with internet predators and luring kids into being abducted, assaulted, raped, or murdered. Law enforcement did a good job getting that information out to the public and now people are very aware of the problem. However, many kids that I talk to(because I work in a daycare) don't know the first thing about being careful while on the web.
I liked the game made by Sprint. I thought it stopped and explained things very well. Looking at it as if I were a child, I really enjoyed the fact that they covered many different aspects of staying safe on the internet, and explained each choice I clicked on. When my daughter gets old enough, I will probably have her play things like that so she becomes even more aware of what can hurt her and how to stay safe.
I didn't care for the Bad Guy one. I didn't think it had as much of a kid-type approach. It had long paragraphs to explain it's answers and nothing in the video talked much. Kids don't like to read paragraphs-if they can even read. I also thought they made it very easy to just click random buttons until you obtained the correct answer, without retaining or enforcing any of the knowledge.
Staying safe on the internet is a major issue that many parents need to take more seriously. Teach your kids why it's important not to give out personal information, or send out pictures of themselves. Monitor what they're doing. Talk to them. Know what they're involved in. Be attuned to what they use everyday for their social network sites and who they're talking to. We can make it much safer for our kids if we just pay attention and teach.
I liked the game made by Sprint. I thought it stopped and explained things very well. Looking at it as if I were a child, I really enjoyed the fact that they covered many different aspects of staying safe on the internet, and explained each choice I clicked on. When my daughter gets old enough, I will probably have her play things like that so she becomes even more aware of what can hurt her and how to stay safe.
I didn't care for the Bad Guy one. I didn't think it had as much of a kid-type approach. It had long paragraphs to explain it's answers and nothing in the video talked much. Kids don't like to read paragraphs-if they can even read. I also thought they made it very easy to just click random buttons until you obtained the correct answer, without retaining or enforcing any of the knowledge.
Staying safe on the internet is a major issue that many parents need to take more seriously. Teach your kids why it's important not to give out personal information, or send out pictures of themselves. Monitor what they're doing. Talk to them. Know what they're involved in. Be attuned to what they use everyday for their social network sites and who they're talking to. We can make it much safer for our kids if we just pay attention and teach.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Filthy Dirty Muck
Censorship is a very murky subject. Particularly because it's difficult to provide decent content, without infringing on people's rights to choose for themselves. In the video provided on KSOL, it talks about repealing the "bleeping out" of indecent words on broadcasts and prime time shows. The commentators on the video insist that this law is outdated and should be repealed and presents the argument that parents can control what is watched and taken in by their children. This is also the number one argument in "The Internet's Free Speech Moment" and an article about the Internet being held to the "strictest jurisdiction".
I found a website with a list of several supposed breaking stories with proof that were kept from the mainstream media. http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacorruption details the accounts of several influential newscasters who supposedly had stories that were of vital importance that were threatened or fired if they did not back down and leave the story be. Or sanitize said story to the networks' liking.
I'm somewhat torn as to the censorship. I believe each person has a right to determine the influx of content into their lives. However, I do not agree with extensive cursing, sexual acts, invasion of privacy, and the inclusion of graphic details or images. A major issues, as stated above, is that of children. There are substantial arguments against censorship because there are so many ways for parents to control media for their children. According to an article by kidshealth.org, the average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. Kids may become desensitized to violence and more aggressive. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want. Violent acts are portrayed by the "good guys" or "heroes". Even though kids are taught by their parents that it's not right to hit, television says it's OK to bite, hit, or kick if you're the good guy. Risky Behaviors are also promoted. TV is full of programs and commercials that depict risky behaviors (such as drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking cigarettes, and having premarital sex) as cool, fun, and exciting. Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows. A recent study by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) found that youth exposure to alcohol ads on TV increased by 30% from 2001 to 2006. Kids who watch 5 or more hours of TV per day are far more likely to begin smoking cigarettes than those who watch less than the recommended 2 hours a day. Due to the "product placement" in movies and popular shows.
These are just a few things backing the massive effect media has on consumer life. Some of these programs can be controlled; but not all. These statistics also hold true for adults. An article written by New Media Warrior stated: When your watch TV, your brain enters a stage called alpha state (8 to 12 HZ to be exact), a similar state we experience when we sleep or when we enter hypnosis. If you remember this is the same state hypnotists and professional psychologists use to implant ideas such as to stop smoking, or to lose weight. Those are the same methods of suggestion used by television. This effect is also been called “mind fog.” Therefore, all of the things, even we watch as adults impact our lives heavily. The divorce rate in this country is astronomical. It's no wonder with the laze fare attitude we place on affairs, pre-marital sex, sport sex, multiple partners, etc. If you're in a sleeping/hypnotic type state, the more you watch, the less sensitized you become to these acts and are more likely to commit them to memory of a pleasant sort. The same for violence, cursing, the treatment of family and others, the list goes on and on.
Censorship is not meant to take away the rights of citizens. It is there to help protect them. An article on About.com detailed the different areas in which media censorship arose and is constructed to help. Protection of your privacy is a big one. Would you want news camera crews filming you through your windows because you refused to answer a question? By law the cannot show that shot due to censorship. It censors graphic images and details such as when someone is murdered. If your family was killed by BTK, would you want intricate verbal paintings and renditions of how your family was found and how it was done, and photos and video all over the mainstream media? Probably not. It's also in place for security. Things from the military that should not be public knowledge. These things don't just protect you, but your country and families as well. Some censorship also helps to hide political biases.
So in this lengthy and somewhat difficult argument, censorship has it's place. There are countries who participate in censorship of mainstream media already; China and Iran are two of them. The US is always so concerned about China being ahead of us in the education field. Did we ever stop to look at the reasons and statistics surrounding this? Partly it is because of China's emphasis and values. But maybe censorship of media causes kids not to want to watch, and when they do it has value. In as study written by James U. McNeal, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. Mindy F. Ji, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. The function of mass media for Chinese children will be primarily educational rather than entertainment. Chinese parents instill in their children at a very early age the belief that a good education is one of the most worthy goals (Shao and Herbig, 1994). The parents try to insure that virtually every activity their children undertake has some contribution to learning. Therefore, we expect that children will look to the media primarily for education, or useful information, and only secondarily for entertainment. During the time of this study there were approximately 114 television sets per 100 urban households (Beijing Statistical Bureau, 1996). Given that there is one television set per household, television viewing is mainly a family activity and a recent study confirms this showing that family television viewing is near the top of the list of parents’ desired weekend activities (McNeal and Ji, 1996. Thus, we would expect the parents to focus on educational programming when the children are viewing with them.
Some of this attributes to responsible parenting. I'm not advocating that children shouldn't be allowed free time and to just be kids, however, TV has a profound impact on them and us as a whole that we should not ignore. The same impacts and effects are seen from the interent, video games, social websites, and the like.
As to the question of whether or not it is the job of the government to censor these things or the individual consumer themselves, that is a little more troubling. I believe that the government should look at all of the problems we're having today. Correlate that with the TV and content of said programs, and decide for themselves whether or not the American people as a whole are remaining unaffected by what they allow networks and media to release. However, I also believe each person should be responsible for themselves and govern whether or not that's really something they want to promote to others, their children, and their families. Several cases have been presented here to negate that you can control what your mind retains while intaking different aspects of media take a hint and limit it.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html#
http://www.newmediawarrior.net/2012/07/how-television-affects-your-brain/
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11494
I found a website with a list of several supposed breaking stories with proof that were kept from the mainstream media. http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacorruption details the accounts of several influential newscasters who supposedly had stories that were of vital importance that were threatened or fired if they did not back down and leave the story be. Or sanitize said story to the networks' liking.
I'm somewhat torn as to the censorship. I believe each person has a right to determine the influx of content into their lives. However, I do not agree with extensive cursing, sexual acts, invasion of privacy, and the inclusion of graphic details or images. A major issues, as stated above, is that of children. There are substantial arguments against censorship because there are so many ways for parents to control media for their children. According to an article by kidshealth.org, the average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. Kids may become desensitized to violence and more aggressive. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want. Violent acts are portrayed by the "good guys" or "heroes". Even though kids are taught by their parents that it's not right to hit, television says it's OK to bite, hit, or kick if you're the good guy. Risky Behaviors are also promoted. TV is full of programs and commercials that depict risky behaviors (such as drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking cigarettes, and having premarital sex) as cool, fun, and exciting. Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows. A recent study by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) found that youth exposure to alcohol ads on TV increased by 30% from 2001 to 2006. Kids who watch 5 or more hours of TV per day are far more likely to begin smoking cigarettes than those who watch less than the recommended 2 hours a day. Due to the "product placement" in movies and popular shows.
These are just a few things backing the massive effect media has on consumer life. Some of these programs can be controlled; but not all. These statistics also hold true for adults. An article written by New Media Warrior stated: When your watch TV, your brain enters a stage called alpha state (8 to 12 HZ to be exact), a similar state we experience when we sleep or when we enter hypnosis. If you remember this is the same state hypnotists and professional psychologists use to implant ideas such as to stop smoking, or to lose weight. Those are the same methods of suggestion used by television. This effect is also been called “mind fog.” Therefore, all of the things, even we watch as adults impact our lives heavily. The divorce rate in this country is astronomical. It's no wonder with the laze fare attitude we place on affairs, pre-marital sex, sport sex, multiple partners, etc. If you're in a sleeping/hypnotic type state, the more you watch, the less sensitized you become to these acts and are more likely to commit them to memory of a pleasant sort. The same for violence, cursing, the treatment of family and others, the list goes on and on.
Censorship is not meant to take away the rights of citizens. It is there to help protect them. An article on About.com detailed the different areas in which media censorship arose and is constructed to help. Protection of your privacy is a big one. Would you want news camera crews filming you through your windows because you refused to answer a question? By law the cannot show that shot due to censorship. It censors graphic images and details such as when someone is murdered. If your family was killed by BTK, would you want intricate verbal paintings and renditions of how your family was found and how it was done, and photos and video all over the mainstream media? Probably not. It's also in place for security. Things from the military that should not be public knowledge. These things don't just protect you, but your country and families as well. Some censorship also helps to hide political biases.
So in this lengthy and somewhat difficult argument, censorship has it's place. There are countries who participate in censorship of mainstream media already; China and Iran are two of them. The US is always so concerned about China being ahead of us in the education field. Did we ever stop to look at the reasons and statistics surrounding this? Partly it is because of China's emphasis and values. But maybe censorship of media causes kids not to want to watch, and when they do it has value. In as study written by James U. McNeal, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. Mindy F. Ji, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. The function of mass media for Chinese children will be primarily educational rather than entertainment. Chinese parents instill in their children at a very early age the belief that a good education is one of the most worthy goals (Shao and Herbig, 1994). The parents try to insure that virtually every activity their children undertake has some contribution to learning. Therefore, we expect that children will look to the media primarily for education, or useful information, and only secondarily for entertainment. During the time of this study there were approximately 114 television sets per 100 urban households (Beijing Statistical Bureau, 1996). Given that there is one television set per household, television viewing is mainly a family activity and a recent study confirms this showing that family television viewing is near the top of the list of parents’ desired weekend activities (McNeal and Ji, 1996. Thus, we would expect the parents to focus on educational programming when the children are viewing with them.
Some of this attributes to responsible parenting. I'm not advocating that children shouldn't be allowed free time and to just be kids, however, TV has a profound impact on them and us as a whole that we should not ignore. The same impacts and effects are seen from the interent, video games, social websites, and the like.
As to the question of whether or not it is the job of the government to censor these things or the individual consumer themselves, that is a little more troubling. I believe that the government should look at all of the problems we're having today. Correlate that with the TV and content of said programs, and decide for themselves whether or not the American people as a whole are remaining unaffected by what they allow networks and media to release. However, I also believe each person should be responsible for themselves and govern whether or not that's really something they want to promote to others, their children, and their families. Several cases have been presented here to negate that you can control what your mind retains while intaking different aspects of media take a hint and limit it.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html#
http://www.newmediawarrior.net/2012/07/how-television-affects-your-brain/
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11494
The Green Screen
Green/blue screens are a fascinating tool used to produce our favorite films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. They make you feel as if you're really there and the actors/actresses are actually in danger. A green screen uses one of two methods. Either a static or traveling matte. Static mattes work using a double-exposure matte. The cameraman would shoot the actors in a specific landscape. When the shot is created a piece of black paper or tape is used on the lens so the area of the top of the shot is masked out and left unexposed on the film. The scene is shot normally, but the film is exposed on only one half of the frame. The the cameraman rewinds the film in the camera, and films the top half of the shot(whatever they need it to be) They could use a computer generated top half of the film Or use a technique called optical compositing where the two scenes might be short separately on two pieces of film and then brought into the special effects department to be combined onto a third piece of film.
The scene could also use traveling mattes. This technique lets you combine two or more pieces of film into one piece that looks real. You first must film the background plate. Then you film the actor/actress preforming some sort of daring feat and behind them you would have the background screen displaying the background plate. In the special effects department you can easily use special filters to form two mattes from the shot of the actor/actress.
My favorite use of the screen is the use in action films like Batman, Die Hard, Taken, Salt, Law Abiding Citizen, etc. When the hero does a something impossible against the villain and they look as if they are even more of a hero when they complete it because it looks as if they actually did the thing. Such as when the Batman tumbler collided with the police car. A green screen was used to make it look as if there was a nasty crash in a small parking garage. This was particularly captivating because you're already on the edge of your seat rooting for Batman, and then a massive crash pulls you even further into the movie.
The scene could also use traveling mattes. This technique lets you combine two or more pieces of film into one piece that looks real. You first must film the background plate. Then you film the actor/actress preforming some sort of daring feat and behind them you would have the background screen displaying the background plate. In the special effects department you can easily use special filters to form two mattes from the shot of the actor/actress.
My favorite use of the screen is the use in action films like Batman, Die Hard, Taken, Salt, Law Abiding Citizen, etc. When the hero does a something impossible against the villain and they look as if they are even more of a hero when they complete it because it looks as if they actually did the thing. Such as when the Batman tumbler collided with the police car. A green screen was used to make it look as if there was a nasty crash in a small parking garage. This was particularly captivating because you're already on the edge of your seat rooting for Batman, and then a massive crash pulls you even further into the movie.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Old Time Radio Shows
My sisters and I were raised on the old timey shows such as those that used to be on air. I watched shows like Red Skelton, Ed Sullivan, Green Acres, Mr. Ed, The Musters, I Love Lucy, etc. In short, these radio shows weren't a stretch for me because it's what I grew up with.
I chose Red Rider, Red Skelton, and A Date With Judy. I loved all three. I miss shows with clean humor, you did have to censor for your kids. Values were taught and enforced by those listening. There was just enough suspense tied with comical and satirical humor to keep those listening interested.
The only thing different for me was I couldn't see the things happening. I had to use my imaginations and "paint" the scenes myself. However, back then it wasn't a loss because they'd never seen it on TV anyway. The just assumed it would always be that way. Whereas for myself, it was a little disconcerting to listen and not watch.
I had no trouble at all listening to these classics. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the puns, jokes, and action. I'm planning on listening to several more. These radio shows took me back to when I was little and playing with my sisters, and then going in and sitting on grandpa's lap with a bowl of popcorn and watching these same shows.
I chose Red Rider, Red Skelton, and A Date With Judy. I loved all three. I miss shows with clean humor, you did have to censor for your kids. Values were taught and enforced by those listening. There was just enough suspense tied with comical and satirical humor to keep those listening interested.
The only thing different for me was I couldn't see the things happening. I had to use my imaginations and "paint" the scenes myself. However, back then it wasn't a loss because they'd never seen it on TV anyway. The just assumed it would always be that way. Whereas for myself, it was a little disconcerting to listen and not watch.
I had no trouble at all listening to these classics. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the puns, jokes, and action. I'm planning on listening to several more. These radio shows took me back to when I was little and playing with my sisters, and then going in and sitting on grandpa's lap with a bowl of popcorn and watching these same shows.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
The Great Train Robbery
Most film critiques area bout how well the actors/actresses performed. Or the special effects and whether or not the actor was able to portray the character well. Old films give sanctuary from that. You critique the storyline, the most important part of a movie.
The Great Train Robbery film produced in 1903, was, for its time, an award winning production. 4 robbers rob a train to the tune of an intense piece of music. The robbers pull of the ultimate heist and run into the woods. However, when the townspeople learn of it, they chase them and, in a stand off, kill the robbers and apprehend the stolen goods.
For the time, this move was quite good in my opinion. There was suspense, intrigue, action, and good guy winning. The storyline was strong and had realistic basis. The suspense whether the thieves would pull off the heist or not was certainly very capturing. The action of the shooting, stand off, and chase were all pieces that made it fun to watch. Old movies have an added sort of intrigue because there is nothing said. So in a way, you can make up your own movie to watch, along a certain storyline of course.
The music did an especially good job with the crescendos and intensity with each scene. The only thing that was a little cheesy was the people when the died/were shot, with the overdramatic falling. I did find interesting to watch the dancing scene because, though the whole movies was in black and white, it showed a woman in a yellow dress and highlighted some purples, pinks and violets. All in all the movie was solid in just about all aspects; considering the time in which it was made.
The Great Train Robbery film produced in 1903, was, for its time, an award winning production. 4 robbers rob a train to the tune of an intense piece of music. The robbers pull of the ultimate heist and run into the woods. However, when the townspeople learn of it, they chase them and, in a stand off, kill the robbers and apprehend the stolen goods.
For the time, this move was quite good in my opinion. There was suspense, intrigue, action, and good guy winning. The storyline was strong and had realistic basis. The suspense whether the thieves would pull off the heist or not was certainly very capturing. The action of the shooting, stand off, and chase were all pieces that made it fun to watch. Old movies have an added sort of intrigue because there is nothing said. So in a way, you can make up your own movie to watch, along a certain storyline of course.
The music did an especially good job with the crescendos and intensity with each scene. The only thing that was a little cheesy was the people when the died/were shot, with the overdramatic falling. I did find interesting to watch the dancing scene because, though the whole movies was in black and white, it showed a woman in a yellow dress and highlighted some purples, pinks and violets. All in all the movie was solid in just about all aspects; considering the time in which it was made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)