Reflection on "Fox primary: complicated, contractual"

Reading this article made me think that these four candidates and Fox news are being shady. They mainly spoke of Sarah Palin and her potential run for President, and how as a contributor she gets a paycheck. Which is great for her, but being exclusively to a network seems a little weird to me. I think it would be more normal if a former governor or something (whatever political position one held) had a contract with a network that made them exclusive, but to have someone who is currently in office just seems like Fox is trying to buy people off. And to add in the factor that four of their contributors are more than likely to be running for President... Shady. I think Fox is clever for keeping their contracts in tact for so long, as for the candidates it has both good and bad in it. Good since they are able to get national air time, and a pay check while bad because they don't get to speak with other networks and broaden their social network. I can't wait to see when people start announcing that they are in fact running for President. It will be interesting to see how the press responds.

is blogging viewed as journalism

I think that blogging and journalism are two different things. Like for instance I am blogging MY opinion about a subject, I don't necessarily have anything to back up my opinion. While in journalism, you have to back up you're facts. But I do think blogging is a great way to get experience and have people view your work. There are some great blogs out there that I read on the regular (postsecret, nylon mag, etc.), some like nylon are associated with a magazine, they are updates on what is going on: for example trends, places, music, up and coming things, or their new faves. And yes journalist do tell you what's going on but its different... its more professional, more censored, more typical than a blog will ever be. Hope this makes sense, but then again its just my opinion.

Reflection on 'Fake News'

I had a difficult time thinking of someone to watch for some fake news, I decided on the SNL family. I searched youtube and watched Tina Fey do an impression and make fun of Sarah Palin. I watched a couple clips of this, which I must say were really funny. Then I searched youtube again to find Sarah Palin in an interview, I watched a couple of these as well.
The Tina Fey impressions made Sarah Palin seem dumb. Like how she couldn't handle the question being directed at her, or how she would answer but go off on a completely different tangent that did not make any sense, or even her appearance. Using these as an example, one might get the wrong impression of Sarah Palin. They might take the harsh yet funny criticism of her and make up their mind about her. Which is really not the way to do that, because most people have never even seen Sarah Palin speak, so they really jump to a conclusion with out really knowing what it is she had said or what her message is. Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that SNL and/or Tina Fey, this is their comedic opinion of her. Their opinion which is then portrayed on national television just so happens to shape a huge opinion of americans. I am not taking a side, but I am saying is to take what SNL has to offer at face value: comedy. And if you do happen to watch Sarah Palin speak at any point in time and you do agree that she is a flaming idiot, than go ahead and say that opinion of her. But until you've seen her and you've critiqued her don't let someone else's opinion become your opinion.

Should the Media censor images?

I think that there is a difference between censoring images because they are too graphic and simply with holding images. I think that its hard to say what is too much for the public, sometimes we do need to see the awful stuff to really comprehend the situation and other times enough is enough. There is a line between the two, and I think that the media sometimes wants to make the decision for us on what should be shown. I personally think that images should be available to the public, not to say that there should be gory pictures on the front page of the news every where, but the information needs to be available. And I think that is why Jensen thinks that the media sometimes portrays a different story than the one that is going on because if all images were available to the public than the story would be just out there. "A picture is worth a thousand words" that is such a true statement, pictures can explain a situation without even saying anything. And Jensen also makes a good point that maybe the media wants to portray a story a certain way to have peoples opinion on the situation under control, even if that story is not the truth. But that is not up to them, people need to KNOW the truth not BE TOLD the truth. Because that is when things get confusing.

I just hope that one day people won't be afraid to see the truth... even if it hurts. 

Does the media effect society? Or does society effect the media?

The argument is whether the media effects society or does society effect the media? When Schiller says that the media effects society, he says that there is a manipulation of the people in order to control the people. This being said what is the reason to control the people? What power lies in the control of the public opinion? I would say, a lot. When people are being fed information and are not questioning it, they take that as the truth. The truth, whether it be invalid or not, will always have some sort of pull of how people react. If the media can control people into believing their truth, than society loses its power and someone else is making our decisions/opinions for us.  

MSNBC vs FOX News

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38983430
[The link above is the video I watch from The Rachel Maddow Show]


Its interesting to watch this particular video, because I can now understand how why its so easy to pick a side if one only watches a certain political network. She is very thorough with fact checking and so when Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said that he went to integrated schools, and that his generation the real force for making civil rights happen, she looked it up then she backed it up. So then to form an opinion one feels that the Republicans are lying, trying to rewrite what really happened. Another thing I noticed is how she threw little digs and facts that make it easy to see her side. For example when Glenn Beck was speaking about civil rights at the Lincoln Memorial (the same place MLK spoke) she said, very quickly, that he was speaking to a mostly white crowd, and that he was very flashy. Those kind of small comments, make opinions for people. 




http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4329748/restoring-honor-rally/?playlist_id=86917
[The link above is the video I watched from Fox news about Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally]


I thought it would be interesting to watch another point of view on the Glenn Beck rally. There were a bunch of news people talking about Glenn Beck and how critical the press was of him and not exactly his message at the rally. They said things such as: he's an ex-alcoholic extremist, the crowd was mostly all white republicans. I think Fox was just relaying the message of what the press thinks of Glenn Beck, not informing about what the rally was about or the message he was trying to convey. So from that, I get the idea that maybe Glenn Beck is not favorable but perhaps I need to watch the rally and make up my own mind on his message. 




My opinion is that unless you have already decided to be Democratic or Republican these shows can be very persuasive on your opinion on politics. And if you are already a Democrat or a Republican than these shows just reinforce your opinion. The media knows how to spin an idea to meet a point. 

YAY

I created it correctly!