Is the new media all that bad?

           I have begun reading my book for the report: Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy by Alex Jones. From what I have read so far, one of his main arguments is that the explosion of digital media and new information sources is one of the main processes that is driving newspapers to bankruptcy. These new sources are coupled with new sites like craigslist, which take away one of newspapers main sources of revenue in the classified ads. Jones argues that because of this, the core of investigative news is being driven away. He says in one line that the new media of the internet could potentially help....but he leaves it at that and doesn't give it much more consideration.
            But I disagree. Yes, the majority of people would rather read soft news on Yahoo, but for those informed citizens who really want information, the internet is a great tool for it places multiple sources of information at their fingertips free of cost. A person can read about the unrest in Libya from sources in Libya, major newspapers online, and the US government. Digital media in this sense allows for more citizens to learn about the world and how it affects their democracy.
            Where I do agree with Jones is when it comes to news that hold those in power accountable, it has been the newspapers that have been doing the legwork. They are the ones who pay reporters and journalists full salaries to track down the important news stories and spend the amount of time necessary to obtain all the details. With newspapers slashing their staff to try and survive, losing these reporters and journalists is something that online and digital media cannot replace.

Man has 39 Wives and nearly 100 children/ Soft news

Yesterday in class we were discussing the media's obligation to bring real news to the public's attention. The professor said that this standard has been declining and that now soft news takes up way too much of the coverage. Other students responded that the media wasn't doing this because they wanted to, but because the public wants it. Its not that the media's standard for soft news has fallen, it just reflects the demographic realities of our generation. Well, either way, with revolt in Libya and an earthquake in New Zealand, guess what made top news in Yahoo? :http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110222/od_nm/us_india_family   Still, thats pretty impressive to deal with 39 wives and have 100 children.

Media Portrayal of Politics in Wisconsin

For those who have not been following the news, check out this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20wisconsin.html?_r=1&ref=us. What I find interesting is not the politics behind the labor unions and the governor, but how the media portrays it. In the textbook, a motif discussed was how the media often "frames" the issue. Since most news often covers very broad topics, when the media presents a story, it decides into what context it will place the story. Furthermore, an idea discussed for a large portion of the textbook was that not only does the media place its' stories in different contexts, it also tells the viewers how to think about an issue. When an issue is presented, the media will, on purpose or not, tell you how to think about a certain issue.
               Keeping that in mind, when I read this article, I could see the framing the NY times has done. It has clearly placed this story in the frame of the partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats, as well as a frame of this affair being a staging point for a Democrat comeback. I just found that interesting.

Watchdog or Lapdog?

Chapter 10 in the textbook is all about the watchdog aspect of journalism and how it is essential to democracy. The textbook claims- and I agree- that though the public assumes that this is a essential and needed aspect to journalism, it is the least well defined. How do journalists skirt on the line of asking the necessary questions to show exactly what the government is doing and not just be a pack of dogs looking to tear into every public official? Another question that was raised is how do journalists do this watchdog aspect (like the Watergate and Deep Throat affair) without being influenced by money? Whoever owns the newsroom is looking for scandal-generating headlines and money- not necessarily the best journalism. I think that the public needs to not only hold governments accountable, but also their newspapers to ensure that the newspapers lets the journalists do their jobs.

Mubarak Steps Down

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down a few days after 30 years of rule. Media was not a major factor behind his decision, it WAS the major factor.  Of course, Mubarak created the conditions that made people protest. He was the one who let the gaps between the rich and poor develop and created a police state.

But once the protests started, it was the new global media of Twitter and Youtube that were able to broadcast images from handheld cell phones and let hundreds of thousands of people deposit Mubarak from power even though they had no clear program or leader. I think that new global media can be a force for both unification and division, but for sure this media is powerful. I am curious though about how though the world was shocked by what happened to the Green movement in Iran, nothing happened there, whereas in Egypt, with no organized movement, serious change happened? In conclusion I think that mass media can have a major political effect, but it cannot by itself effect change.

Television vs. Radio

I really agreed with Druckman's point that people learn more from television than they do from radio. Like he said, when it comes to judging qualities like evasiveness and being trustworthy, humans put a lot of emphasis on non-verbal components. I know for sure that sometimes when I see someone, I just feel in my gut that this person is a genuinely nice guy or is not trustworthy. Thats why dirty political ads are so effective: by putting an image on the screen and then inviting the viewer to associate the image of the political opponent with some negative quality, it is in our nature to come to accept  that association. With that in mind; here is an example of Mccain's attempt to get viewers to associate President Obama as more of a celebrity than an serious candidate:

The Egyptian Protests

I was thinking about our class discussion about the objectivity of the media. I said that there is no such thing as an objective media. If even if one media outlet tries to project an objective outlook, there is always some bias because humans are biased. When we look at piece of news or knowledge, we immediately begin judging it and reinterpreting the event according to how we think this news should appear. To that effect, I thought the media's slant on the Egyptian protests was very clear. To according to many (but not all) of the media outlets, the protests were for the beginning of a democratic regime in Egypt. As Fareed Zakaria of TIME magazine wrote: "according to the 2010 report, a large majority believes that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government...

I remain convinced that fears of an Egyptian theocracy are vastly overblown.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045888-3,00.html#ixzz1D9MZUHOl"

Granted, this was an opinion piece but it is just emblematic of media outlets to put spins on stories. I think that this is the natural order of things, but others disagreed. Thoughts?