http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/14/mr.nice.guy.backlash/index.html
In this article, the author cites multiple "experts" on dating and relationships, who all seem to have advice for 'nice guys': Don't be so nice. One of these experts (Dan Macon) is quoted as saying the following:
"Sure, women want you to show them respect and love, but they also want you to be a man and take charge. If you can't do that, women won't want to be with you."
This is gendering as it happens. Here, we have a media outlet literally telling readers what a man is, or should be. It is also the media dictating what kinds of issues are important via Agenda Setting: here, we see that the emphasis is on relationships (with the subtext that they should be STRAIGHT relationships nonetheless) and how to succeed at them. This may or not be of paramount importance to some people, but the very appearance of an article like this begins to plant seeds of what a relationship ought to look like, and how to attain one.
Some things the article fails to mention are the ways that these "relationships" work out. Eg: You act like a jerk (or a MAN in this articles words) and acquire a new girlfriend. Which kind of relationship do you think you're more likely to have: a meaningful, lasting relationship or one that serves to do little other than relieve sexual tension? Building relationships based on "man qualities" or being assertive might not be the best lifestyle choice when you think about it critically, but none of this is addressed in the article.
What do you guys think? Is there a niche market for this kind of journalism, or does it only serve to gender/set the agenda for the public at large?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Media Bias UCLA Study
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
This article deals with a study conducted by a political science major from UCLA. The first thing she acknowledges is the fact that the Wall Street Journal, a well-known conservative source, has recently taken a liberal shift. She states that she assumed media bias would be present in multiple outlets, but just how pronounced the findings were surprised even her. She compares bias in media to the member of congress. "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left." To me, this just shows how a change in the control of congress can completely reshape the way media outlets report news. For instance, just a few years ago, when republicans controlled congress, the bias was to the right.
In a study conducted using articles over the past ten years, comprising twenty major media outlets, eighteen of the twenty scored left of center. Only Fox News and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. This shows conclusively that bias does exist whether or not the public acknowledges it.
Her next assertion is if viewers spent as much time watching Fox's "Special Report" as they did watching ABC's "World News" or NBC's "Nightly News" then they would receive a nearly perfect balance of right and left wing news. In my opinion, this would lead to a much more informed public. If everyone watched the news that was reported in a way they didn't agree with, the overall knowledge that people based their political stance on would be much more even. Often times, people only hear or read the news that they want to hear, because they know they will agree with that particular source. With more diversity in the media, bias would be less prevalent.
Overall, this report and study shows exactly how many media outlets cater to the bias that they think the public wants. If more reporting was done without bias, so as not to appease people, but instead inform them of what they need to know, the general population that watch news would be better adept at making decisions based on what they know. Media bias won't just go away, and it's almost natural because media outlets want to draw readership viewership and they know the best way to do that is through agreeing with the majority.
This article deals with a study conducted by a political science major from UCLA. The first thing she acknowledges is the fact that the Wall Street Journal, a well-known conservative source, has recently taken a liberal shift. She states that she assumed media bias would be present in multiple outlets, but just how pronounced the findings were surprised even her. She compares bias in media to the member of congress. "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left." To me, this just shows how a change in the control of congress can completely reshape the way media outlets report news. For instance, just a few years ago, when republicans controlled congress, the bias was to the right.
In a study conducted using articles over the past ten years, comprising twenty major media outlets, eighteen of the twenty scored left of center. Only Fox News and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. This shows conclusively that bias does exist whether or not the public acknowledges it.
Her next assertion is if viewers spent as much time watching Fox's "Special Report" as they did watching ABC's "World News" or NBC's "Nightly News" then they would receive a nearly perfect balance of right and left wing news. In my opinion, this would lead to a much more informed public. If everyone watched the news that was reported in a way they didn't agree with, the overall knowledge that people based their political stance on would be much more even. Often times, people only hear or read the news that they want to hear, because they know they will agree with that particular source. With more diversity in the media, bias would be less prevalent.
Overall, this report and study shows exactly how many media outlets cater to the bias that they think the public wants. If more reporting was done without bias, so as not to appease people, but instead inform them of what they need to know, the general population that watch news would be better adept at making decisions based on what they know. Media bias won't just go away, and it's almost natural because media outlets want to draw readership viewership and they know the best way to do that is through agreeing with the majority.
Negative Political Advertising & its Overall Effects (now and later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1p3tLKE-A&feature=player_embedded
This YouTube clip is a prime example of a negative political advertisement. In this particular clip Darcy Burner attacks congressman Dave Riechert. Burner makes several attacks towards his character and doubts his ability to "get things done", ultimately stating that rather than being "independent" he is "ineffective." Interestingly enough, Burner does not state what she is going to do in congress in order to be "effective", her voice is just heard at the end of the advertisement saying that she approves this message.
In class we learned that negative political character based advertisements such as these promote political cynicism as well as a decrease self-efficacy from the general public especially after multiple exposures. However, negative advertisements such as these create another response that benefits the attacker showcased in the ad. A study done by Digital Democracy, revealed that the majority of people who saw such negative based ads voted for the attacker. Proving that negative ads do generate the type of response that a vote hungry politician needs. In addition to these findings, it was also discovered that people who saw these negative ads overtime may have forgotten where/when they had heard something negative about the politician being attacked in the ad, but the negative content was still stuck in their minds. Such findings show that not only does negative information stick, but it sticks longer than the positive information.
So where do we go from here? If negative ads in the long-run promote cynicism and decrease self-efficacy from the public which may decrease overall voting, but currently are giving politicians their desired response, a vote in their favor, how do we as a society make a change in this dangerous pattern? There really isn't much we can do except try to avoid and/ or protest negative political advertising by not voting for that particular candidate who uses negative advertising as their prime component of their campaign. However, as a society can we do that or do we secretly like hearing the negative aspects of another politician?
-Maria Matlack
This YouTube clip is a prime example of a negative political advertisement. In this particular clip Darcy Burner attacks congressman Dave Riechert. Burner makes several attacks towards his character and doubts his ability to "get things done", ultimately stating that rather than being "independent" he is "ineffective." Interestingly enough, Burner does not state what she is going to do in congress in order to be "effective", her voice is just heard at the end of the advertisement saying that she approves this message.
In class we learned that negative political character based advertisements such as these promote political cynicism as well as a decrease self-efficacy from the general public especially after multiple exposures. However, negative advertisements such as these create another response that benefits the attacker showcased in the ad. A study done by Digital Democracy, revealed that the majority of people who saw such negative based ads voted for the attacker. Proving that negative ads do generate the type of response that a vote hungry politician needs. In addition to these findings, it was also discovered that people who saw these negative ads overtime may have forgotten where/when they had heard something negative about the politician being attacked in the ad, but the negative content was still stuck in their minds. Such findings show that not only does negative information stick, but it sticks longer than the positive information.
So where do we go from here? If negative ads in the long-run promote cynicism and decrease self-efficacy from the public which may decrease overall voting, but currently are giving politicians their desired response, a vote in their favor, how do we as a society make a change in this dangerous pattern? There really isn't much we can do except try to avoid and/ or protest negative political advertising by not voting for that particular candidate who uses negative advertising as their prime component of their campaign. However, as a society can we do that or do we secretly like hearing the negative aspects of another politician?
-Maria Matlack
Political Cynicism
http://www.veoh.com/collection/Penn-Says/watch/v18318330asZynqbp#
For my post I watched a video blog by Penn Jillette. In it he discusses polical cynicism and believes that it maybe called for in an election and does have an effect on whether or not you will vote for someone. He says that when hanging out with his friends, they call the politicians liars and hypocrites even if that is the person they are rooting for to win an election. He closed up by saying that we should just take politicians at their word and what they say and "the only way to waste your vote is to vote."
I think that this touched on a topic we discussed in class. When we talked about political cynicism, we said it has the possibility to make someone not want to vote. Penn is an example supporting this. Because of his cynicism, he's turned off by the whole voting process and believes it's a waste because either way a liar or hypocrite will win. While this does support that argument, I don't think it's necessarily true in all cases. Yes, maybe a cynic will view the election process as picking a lesser of two evils but that's just it, you want the lesser of the two evils to win, so some people may want to vote just to make sure the one they are more cynical towards doesn't win.
Christine Crowley
For my post I watched a video blog by Penn Jillette. In it he discusses polical cynicism and believes that it maybe called for in an election and does have an effect on whether or not you will vote for someone. He says that when hanging out with his friends, they call the politicians liars and hypocrites even if that is the person they are rooting for to win an election. He closed up by saying that we should just take politicians at their word and what they say and "the only way to waste your vote is to vote."
I think that this touched on a topic we discussed in class. When we talked about political cynicism, we said it has the possibility to make someone not want to vote. Penn is an example supporting this. Because of his cynicism, he's turned off by the whole voting process and believes it's a waste because either way a liar or hypocrite will win. While this does support that argument, I don't think it's necessarily true in all cases. Yes, maybe a cynic will view the election process as picking a lesser of two evils but that's just it, you want the lesser of the two evils to win, so some people may want to vote just to make sure the one they are more cynical towards doesn't win.
Christine Crowley
John Stewart: Cynicism at its finest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JnDY2Gv5YQ
In the video above, you see John Stewart giving a brilliant performance of cynicism while critiquing Glenn Beck's ideological biased rants. Glenn Beck is one of the most bias personalities on television. He has a strong preference to covering stories that favor his ideologies and additionally verbally attacks all who have opposing opinions. His one-sided prime-time show has one of the largest television audiences of any cable network. His influence on their voting habits and ability to organize makes him one of the most influential men on T.V. This can be very dangerous when the message he is giving is so biased and often times dishonest. John Stewart's cynical depiction of his latest "chalk-board rant" questions everything from Beck's ideologies to his intelligence. Stewart shows the absurdity of linking social justice to Nazi Germany, which Glenn Beck actually does. Stewart points out the ridiculousness of the notion that says "because you subscribe to an idea, you subscribe to an ideology, and to every possible negative consequence that the ideology remotely implies when you carry it to absurd extremes." This kind of critique of individuals who carry great influence is critical to a lively democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JnDY2Gv5YQ
This clip is from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It was featured by the more liberal MSNBC as a way to attack more conservative Fox News. Given MSNBC's larger viewing audience vs. the Daily Show, it is logical to conclude that more people saw this piece of cynical TV. The whole clip is dedicated to showing how Glenn Beck, who is a host on Fox News with millions of viewers every day, is using his program to spread fear and dissent among his viewers, with the hopes that it will spread even farther. Jon Stewart lampoons him by using Glenn Beck's very own style of news delivery to show how ridiculous his claims are. Following Baumgartner and Morris' thoughts on cynicism, I believe that this is an example that shows the exception to a cynical public. While many news shows foster cynical thought unintentionally, Jon Stewart wants his audience to see how absurd Glenn Beck is, making them cynical toward that show on purpose. I believe that he does this for the benefit of the viewers, as he, like many others, believe that Glenn Beck is spreading hatred and fear rather than good news.
How TV ads trigger emotions and set the agenda for other forms of media
For my blog post, I chose to write about emotional political ads. I chose this topic because I think it plays a huge part in democracy and it is very effective. Emotion is what sparks heated debates, which often turn in to arguments. Emotion is what makes many people lose their temper and do things they might regret. So, this is the perfect way to motivate a person to vote and make their voice heard. Another tactic is by using fear but this post focuses on the power of political ads that trigger emotion in people.
The example i used was this advertisement President Obama used on healthcare. He used this advertisement, which was very emotional, to gain the publics' attention and trigger emotions. This advertisement made me feel a sense of sadness and I felt sorry for Obama. After watching this, I also began thinking how important healthcare is but I was triggered emotionally. I thought of my own family and how I would feel if a family member passed away because they didn't have healthcare. And these type of ads are what honestly motivated my decision in the presidential election, congressional and local elections.
Though the ad was presented on TV I think it would have had the same impact if it were in print media. In print, a writer would have crafted a feature story about a person was died or was dying because they didn't have healthcare. And, if it was a local story, I would realize how close to home the issue really is. So, in a way, these political ads also set the agenda for the print media because they write stories similar to the ads, which can have an effect in the community and on democracy.
- PETER PANEPINTO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)