J201 - Section 311

Online Assignment #2

2012-03-08T18:54:00.002-08:00

1) How well did the journalistic community live up
to it’s responsibility to present the facts?

Instead of seeking facts about the
war like they would normally do, the media seemed to have repeated exactly what
the government said to them. It was almost as if simply putting information in
the news made it accurate, and by this logic, people wholeheartedly believed
what it said once the word got out. The
biggest one talked about in the documentary was how here in America they were
implanting the idea in people’s minds that Sadaam Hussein had something to do
with Al Qaeda and the attacks, when he actually had no connection to it.

2)  Where they failed, why did they do so?

The journalists failed because they were
afraid that the new found patriotism in the United States would be compromised
if they were to highlight the negative parts that were coming out of this war.

3)  What kinds of pressures did news organizations
face?

a.    There was a lot of pressure to stand by the
government because due to the recent patriotism, any questioning of the
government could be considered un-American.

4)  How did different news outets cover the story
differently?

a. Liberal media questioned the war, whereas
conservative media like Fox News spent a lot of time endorsing the war. This
would make sense because President Bush and his administration were trying to
get people to support this war on Terror.

Research Report- The Weekly Warrior

2012-03-07T11:28:00.001-08:00

Research Report

Theauthor of The Weekly Warrior,Nicholas Lemann, grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he pursued hiseducation with the pedal to the metal, eventually landing himself atHarvard. He graduated magna cumlaude in 1976 and got his first start as an associate editor at Washington Monthly, a non-profitmagazine with its headquarters in Washington D.C. He eventually worked his way up through the ranks, became astaff writer for the New Yorker andfinally in 2003 was hired as the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism atColumbia University. However,there is more to go along with this impressive resumé. He has written and published five books, with his mostrecent book published in 2006 on the Civil War entitled, Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. Lemann continues to write for the New Yorker and play an active part inthe community as a member of the New York Institute for the Humanities andserving on the board of directors of various journalistic related groups.

Thisarticle was published in The New Yorker, which is a weekly magazinewith collections ranging from criticisms to poetry. In this periodical is a section called “The Wayward Press,”which is filled with opinionated pieces and critiques. In the article written by Lemann, hegoes in depth about a man named I.F. Stone and explains his career from hishumble beginnings as the son of immigrant parents who owned a drygoods toultimately selling his services and mailing list of his own four-page journalto The New York Review of Books. He also slashes the biography writtenby Myra MacPherson, stating that her focus was too much on making Stone out tobe hero that she lost sight of how to describe him, “either as a writer ofprose…or as an intellectual and political actor” (Lemann, 128).

Whydoes Lemann, a Harvard graduate and current dean of the Graduate School ofJournalism, concern himself with Stone, a man who grew up above a storefront inNew Jersey? After reading thearticle and looking at the elements, I think it is because Lemann isdissatisfied with the inaccurate image that the MacPherson biographypaints. Although Lemann believesthat Stone was truly an original reporter, he did not like how McPhersonportrayed him with little to no enemies and described him as if he onlyreceived support from his readers. However, in reality “he made at least as many enemies as friends,” whichin my opinion is successful for a writer on the cutting edge. As a writer, you want your writing tohave an impact on your readers and evoke reactions and Stone did just that ashe was one of the first journalists to publicly speak out against the VietnamWar. Every era needs a man likeI.F. Stone to question the actions of the government and get the word out onthe views of people who do not have a voice.

Uponresearching and then comparing Lemann and Stone, I found it interesting howthey both came from such different backgrounds, but in the end they both foundtheir way to success. This truly illustrates why many refer to America as theland of opportunity.

Elements of Journalism Discussion

2012-03-07T10:23:00.002-08:00

1) Kovach & Rosenstien briefly talk about therelationship between science and journalism. Do you think that this“scientific” method is required to write a story? Why, or why not?

2) In regards to biases….do you think thatjournalists can ever be completely unbiased? If not, in what ways canjournalists lay out all of the facts so as to avoid being biased?

3) How hard do you think we should be onjournalists? Is it necessary to put as much responsibility as we do on them togive us the cold, hard facts or is the public overly critical of journalists?

4) Transparency is a huge talking point in thisreading. Do you think that people generally pay attention to the writer’smethods, sources, or motives? Or do you think more people just read the storyand believe it until they have a reason not to?

5) After reading this article, do you thinkjournalism is headed in the right direction? (ie. How journalists cancommunicate and get information faster than ever before, don’t have toinvestigate themselves…)

6) How does one balance their sources and the news?Is that difficult to do or relatively simple?

The Marketplace Of Ideas by: Robert Schmuhl and Robert G. Picard Research Report

2012-03-07T01:14:00.002-08:00

The chapter thatwe read comes from the book called: The Institutions of American Democracy:The Press, which is a scholarly book looking in to the first amendment andour right of free speech. The book discusses the relationships of thegovernment and the press, and how both interact with each other and affectcertain outcomes. The book provides historical evidence to back up the claimsmade, and gives an insight into the minds of some of the nation’s experts inthe journalism field. The book has received glowing reviews and most of thereviews claim that the book is a “must read” for anyone studying the field ofjournalism. This background information about the book helped provide me withinsight of what to expect from the chapter, and also that the chapter I readwas legitimate and to be taken seriously since the authors are the best intheir field.

The first authorof the chapter, Robert Schmuhl is the Walter H.Annenberg-Edmund P. Joyce Chair in American Studies and Journalism and Directorof the John W. Gallivan Program in Journalism, Ethics & Democracy at theUniversity of Notre Dame. (According to Notre Dame’s website.] He attendedNotre Dame in the 1970s, got his masters at IU and went on to teach at variousuniversities around the world. Schmuhl currently teaches at Notre Dame and hadwritten 11 books. Schmuhl is considered an expert with his extensive knowledgeof journalism and has written many scholarly articles, and has had his workpublished in various newspapers around the country.

The second author of the chapter, Robert G.Picard, is an expert on the media, and especially media economics. He haswritten 27 books, and is currently the director of research at the Universityof Oxford. Picard is an internationally recognized expert in the field ofjournalism and has held conferences around the world and has taught atuniversities all over Europe, the United States, and Asia. In addition to the27 books Picard has written hundreds of scholarly articles for variousdifferent publications. Picard is highly regarded in the Education world, andhe is even listed in the Who’s Who.

After looking up the publisher, The OxfordUniversity Press, they are a worldwide company that strives to provide theconsumer with educational, scholarly, academic books that suit eachindividual’s book needs. Their educational publications have had a high awardreceiving success rate and are mostly educational. In addition to the publisherthe Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands was mentioned. This foundation wasstarted in 2001 to promote more awareness of the American Constitution.

The excerpt that we read from the book aftercareful research should be taken seriously because of the high regard theauthors have in the world of academia. In addition to the extensive researchthe authors did, the publishing company is well regarded and the book receivedacclaimed reviews from different scholars. According to reviews everyonestudying journalism should read this book, and I am going to have to agree withthat claim due to the facts I have researched.

Works Cited

"Biographical Information Robert G. Picard." RobertG. Picard Home Page. Web. 07 Mar. 2012.<http://www.robertpicard.net/Picard.html>.

"Department of American Studies." Robert Schmuhl// // University of Notre Dame. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://americanstudies.nd.edu/faculty-and-staff/robert-schmuhl/>.

"Other Annenberg Organizations and Programs." AnnenbergFoundation. Web. 07 Mar. 2012.<http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/other>.

"Our Publishing." Oxford University Press.Web. 07 Mar. 2012. <http://global.oup.com/about/publishing?cc=us>.

"Robert Schmuhl - Politics News, Elections Coverage,Political Analysis and Opinion." Politics News, ElectionsCoverage, Political Analysis and Opinion. Web. 07 Mar. 2012.<http://www.politicsdaily.com/robert-schmuhl/>.

Journalsim of Verification Speech- Jaeger

2012-03-06T17:40:00.000-08:00

Journalism has the power to assist in the creation and shaping of peoples opinions which is an extremely influential position. Deciding what is “the truth” can be a rigorous task for any journalist but it is their duty to be fair to the reader and the facts. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel express in Journalism of Verification the areas where journalism can become blurry in expressing the truth and they present ways to avoid these situations and problems.

The article starts off explaining the concept of discipline of verification. Discipline of verification is a journalist’s “personal method of testing and providing information” (Kovach & Rosenstiel). Discipline of verification evolved from the concept of objectivity which is the idea of creating a consistent method of checking information. Making sure that the truth was not only verified and expressed but also the understanding of the information is not presented in a biased view. “Fairness should mean the journalist is being fair to the facts, and to the citizens understanding of them.”

The article then provides a list of criteria to avoid false journalism called the intellectual principles of science reporting. There are five major principles. Never add anything that was not there. Never deceive the audience. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives. Rely on your own original reporting. Lastly, exercise humility. These guidelines show a scientific version of discovering a more reliable piece of work. Not only don’t add false things but also don’t invent and fabricate ideas. If you deceive your audience, you soon wont have one.

A source is also a major factor and contributor in journalism. A journalist must try to seek out the truth but not mislead the source in their intention. A reporter can twist someones words by placing them in the wrong context. This is covered under transparency. As Kovach and Rosenstiel explain, journalists are seeking out the truth, they must show all sides of the story and be as unbiased as possible in the process.

I found this article very insightful and it presented a lot of truthful ideas that not many people are aware of or think about on a daily basis. As consumers of news, we don’t often question what we are hearing and receiving from the press. For the most part we trust them. However, in this day and age, news needs to be informed almost before it happens. This causes journalists to fabricate and exaggerate events because they have to keep up with their competitors in a fast paced world. As professor Wells explained in class, journalism has a lot of pressures, one of which is time. It’s not discovering the news so much anymore, instead its discovering the “scoop”. This is one negative concept that has entered the journalism world.

An area that I feel is very important but not focused much on in the article is originality. Originality is one of the intellectual principles of science reporting. Kovach and Rosenstiel touch on the subject briefly but they make one major point, “originality is deeply grounded in journalism”. If you use someone else’s ideas or concepts, then not only are you not being original but you are also deceiving your audience and the person who is responsible for the original idea. Being original will bring attention and uniqueness to your work.

The technique of verification that I feel is most successful is the accuracy checklist created by David Yarnold. It does an excellent job of making sure the article is not biased and that the information is not only accurate but also presented accurately. One of the questions that is introduced and very important is if the background material required to understand the story is complete. Not many people focus on the background information but it can be very helpful to the reader in understanding the information given.

Journalism has many obstacles to over come in order to present truthful and powerful work. If discipline of verification and the intellectual principles of science reporting are remembered, it will be easier to climb the hills. It is most important to remember the ultimate goal is to find the truth.

"The Weekly Warrior" Discussion Questions

2012-03-05T18:00:00.004-08:00

"The Weekly Warrior" Discussion Questions

Do you agree with the author that it is impossible for one to reconcile the political views of Jefferson and Marx?

If I.F. Stone voiced his opinion in today's media community how do you think he would be received?

How would Stone have operated differently in this current age of internet?

Why do you think Stone supported Communism so adamantly?

Stone was a polarizing figure. On one hand he defended individual rights and was a civil libertarian and on the other hand he blindly supported Communism at many times. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? How do you personally feel about him?

Online Assignment #2

2012-03-02T14:37:00.001-08:00

Online Assignment #2

Katie Sandheinrich

How well did the journalistic community live up toits responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

The journalistic community did not live up to its responsibilityto present the facts post 9/11. Althoughit was a very emotional time for the United States as a country, it’s still theduty of journalists and news organizations to present the facts. Many chose to simply listen to the governmentand not to investigate what was really going on.

Where they failed, why did they do so?

They failed by simply taking what government officialswere saying as fact. Good investigative reporting involves checking your factsand making sure your sources are right. Manynews sources didn’t do this.

What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations faced pressure from the government,and probably from the American people. Theyfaced pressure to be patriotic and not to say what the government was sayingwas wrong. At the time, that would beseen as “un-American”. There was apressure to stop whoever organized the 9/11 attacks, and not to question thegovernment.

How did different kinds of news outlets cover theissue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

Media outlets like the New York Times chose to trustgovernment officials as their sources even if the facts didn’t really lineup. The Knight Ridder did a better jobof investigating the facts and realizing that something was going on. They saw past the stories and looked into thefacts.

Online Assignment 2

2012-03-02T14:19:00.000-08:00

How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

Some journalists did better than others to present the true facts about 9/11. It was hard because since it was such a sensitive topic to all Americans, the journalists had to tiptoe around some of the facts. The American public only wanted to see patriotic news and nothing that had anything bad to say about the government. The government jumped to conclusions about Saddam Hussein's involvement with al-Qaeda and his involvement with weapons of mass destruction. The good journalists were skeptical of the government instead of just giving the public what they wanted. They later found that there was little involvement from Iraq with 9/11.

Where they failed, why did they do so?

It was hard for the reporters to know where to separate the emotions from the facts. They also kept reporting on false things such as Saddam Hussein's involvement with al-Qaeda and this influenced the government to try to capture him even more. The media had a lot of power in influencing the public and the government. The government would promote propaganda for the country to go to war and the reporters continued promoting these fallacies. They also believed a con man about what was going on in Iraq because they were desperate. Stories were embellished and then ended up contradicting each other, so no one knew what to believe.

What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

It was hard for the news organizations to know the truth because even the government would lie to them. Cheney blatantly lied that Saddam Hussein was looking for nuclear weapons to increase the American people's support in the American government. The news organizations were also under a lot of pressure to remain patriotic in the hard time. The public didn't want to see things that were unpatriotic even if they were the facts. For example, facts were presented about casualties caused by the US and the reporters were accused of being anti-American.

How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

Some news outlets were used to influence the government, while others were used just as an outlet for information. Weekly Standards were used to urge the President to get rid of Saddam Hussein and then other news outlets re-reported this until the government and the public got the message. The two main news outlets were newspaper and video. Newspapers were able to show pictures with lengthy descriptions and videos showed the actual action that was happening. Seeing the towers actually fall hit an emotion in the American public that nothing else could have. The two reported very similar news because TV news takes the news from the morning newspapers. Video also allowed for interviews with government officials and let the public see the government representative's facial expressions and reactions.

Natalie Foster- Homework Assignment 2

2012-03-02T09:40:00.000-08:00

How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

Many news outlets didn’t search for facts concerning the War on Terror but rather said whatever the government told them to. For instance, the government would feed top secret information to the press and then, when it went public, would go on the news to validate it. The press would then keep replaying the story over and over again until it sunk into the minds of American people. The press also falsely led America to believe that 9/11 was “sponsored, supported, and even ordered by Saddam Hussein”. In reality, there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queida.

Where they failed, why did they do so?

After 9/11 there was an overwhelming feeling of solidarity among the American people. This solidarity brought about a strong feeling of patriotism. Everyone in the press knew not to criticize a government thats leading us in a time of war. Fox News and the New York Times were some of the main endorsers of the war. They feared that focusing on the hardships and casualties of the war will take away from the patriotism it brought about.

What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations felt an overwhelming amount of pressure to not question government actions. However, when the press did go against the grain and question the war they were viewed as unpatriotic and soft on terrorism. It was also bad for business because stories that raised question over the validity of the war in Iraq didn’t get front page because they were not as definitive as other news. Democrats did just this and instead of being applauded they were labeled as bad Americans.

How did different kinds of news outlets cover the story differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

The majority of the press covered news surrounding the war similarly. Much of this can be credited to pressure from the Bush Administration to gain public support for the war. Fox News was a leader in this and many other news outlets went along with this mainstream stance. Liberal media tended to question the war more than Conservative media. Many newspapers mandated that for every one Liberal mentioned in an article there had to be two Conservatives. Print media such as the New York Times printed stories that were either without sources or loosely credited in attempt to endorse the war.

Online Assignment 2

2012-03-02T02:39:00.002-08:00

1. How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility topresent the facts?

I believe that the journalistic community overall did a poor job ofpresenting the facts to the public. A few periodicals, such as Knight Ridder,attempted to look past what the government wanted its citizens to hear and tryto uncover the truth about the September 11^th attacks and SaddamHussein’s involvement in the catastrophic events. However, the journalists whostrived for the whole truth were insignificant in the grand scheme of thingsbecause the majority of the writers for publications would only gather a smallamount of information and pass it off as the real deal. For example, one story that was spreadnationwide and later proved to be false was a report that Hussein and Al Qaedamet in Prague, which led people to the conclusion that they were workingtogether. Reporters actually in Prague at the time were not able to find anyinformation on the foresaid meeting that allegedly took place. Stories such as this misinformed theAmerican people and led them to a false sense of patriotism following 9/11.

2. Where they failed, why did they do so?

Journalists failed to convey the truth to American citizens because theywere pressured greatly from various parts of society. First off, following the attack on their nation, Americanswere very vulnerable and scared and did not know where to turn. Journalistswere then afraid that if they spoke against the government or war that theywould be considered anti- American. Therefore, journalists let their emotions get in the way of the realstory and were not able to provide the truth to American citizens.

3. What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations faced an enormous amount of pressure to promote thewar to Americans. Bush and his administration pushed for pro-war articles andstories that would hold the side of the government. Bush also setup a scripted press conference after 9/11 andonly accepted questions that would promote the war and anti- Arabic ideas. As a consumer of American media, I amconfused as to what to believe is true due to all of the findings of thisdocumentary. The government wasnot only a main factor that influenced the media, but also corporations andconsumers of the media who sent in e-mails and letters to the popularnewspapers criticizing stories that did not describe what the United States ofAmerica was doing in a positive light.

4. How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently?What was the difference between outlets?

Following September 11^th, the Knight Ridder was one of thefirst publications to call out the government. Arguing the point of whether or not to go to Iraq, theycited Bush’s administration for falsely associating Saddam Hussein with AlQaeda and the 9/11 attacks. Acouple news organizations that endorsed the war were Fox News and the New YorkTimes. These news sources wouldkeep up the story of 9/11 and continuously bring in “new information” about theattacks to keep up a sense of patriotism among the American citizens. These stories and “new information”were in sense a propaganda for the United States and tried to justify why theBush administration was going to war with Iraq. The reportscalled on Americans to support the government and because they were in avulnerable situation they obliged, which turned out to be unfortunate in theend as America went to war.

Online Assignment 2 - Meghan Stark

2012-03-01T19:11:00.000-08:00

1. How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

The investigative journalistic community failed to pursue the facts by asking the hard hitting questions. There were other reporters present other than the scripted ones at Bush's press conference, why did they not demand attention? Many reporters angled their stories to the paper's agenda, rather than present them in a purely objective way after extensive fact checking. Something as sensitive and serious as weapons of mass destruction should have been treated as such in the media.

2. Where they failed, why did they do so?

They took the easy way out with fact checking, and were tricked by the single source mascaraing as two different ones. I think they latched onto this sensational potential news, and were just seeking to confirm it and feed into the national panic. Only a minority of journalists were skeptical, and rather than buying into the easy, exciting news, decided to delve deeper and get the real story by checking their own diverse sources.

3. What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations were pressured to all be spewing the same sensational content, and the competition between networks and papers made them now want to pass up a story as exciting and important after such a national crisis. The nation was glued to media, and they were pressured to deliver results. Therefore, after finding out this information, it spread like wildfire to appease the masses.

4. How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

The more conservative and markedly pro-war leaning news outlets like fox news and the Knight Rider complicated the facts and sensationalized the presence of mass destruction. While other news sources sought out the truth and presented an unpopular, but more accurate account of what was happening. The CBS reporters who were actually in the Middle-East also had a much better perspective on the politics and rationality of these claims, but weren't consulted as much as they should have been.

Derenne-Homework Assignment 2

2012-03-01T18:58:00.004-08:00

How well did the journalist community live up to its responsibility to present the "facts"?
I feel that the journalist community did very little to present things in an honest fashion. Many of the journalist were reporting facts that weren't held to be true and weren't looked into further reasoning to see if the news being reported was appropriate or correct at all.
Where did they fail, how did they do so?
I think the biggest note of failure was their lack of research and depth in finding stories. Many of the stories were reported from weak, sometimes unknown sources, yet many of the times the journalists reported their findings anyways. Without making sure what is reported is true, the journalists really failed to uphold their duties to report the news in an accurate and truthful manner.
What kind of pressures did the news organizations face?
I feel that some of the biggest pressures were time and competition. As with any media reporting company, time means money, and to be the first person to report a groundbreaking story means something. Yet in the rush of being first to have the new front page story, many of the organizations didn't both to check with their sources or dive further into the issues that they were reporting, partly because they attempted to beat their competitors, to gain an audience, and to become more financially successful than others.
How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issues differently? What was the difference between these outlets?
The only difference I really notices was between FOX news and I believe it was the New York Times. I just remember that FOX news was making sure they showed the most graphic and disturbing images and stories to gain an audience's emotions, while many of its competitors at the time were trying to be more sympathetic, especially in regards to those who lost their loved ones.

zac Krause-Online Assignment Two

2012-03-01T18:47:00.000-08:00

1) How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the 'facts'?

Personally, I feel that the journalistic community did a poor job in presenting the ‘facts’ to the public during the time of the Iraqi crisis, shortly after 9/11. In one of President Bush’s interviews, they set up scripted reporters, which left the public out of any serious or hard-pressing inquiries. Additionally, with “Chalabi” and other defectors, the community did a poor job researching, as many of the defectors’ stories changed between the media outlets. While the journalists appeared to have confirmation that they had their facts straight, the facts were never actually confirmed. These lies all led to misreporting and improper blame being placed on the Iraqi’s, greatly affecting the public’s opinion. Had the community reported the facts, the outcome would have been much different.

2) Where they failed, why did they do so?

As stated above, the community did a poor job in fact-checking, opting to ask convenient sources whether or not their stories were confirmed. By asking those who had heard the same stories, the stories were said to be true when they were not. Additionally, the journalists posted numerous sensationalist stories including theories of atomic bombs being built in Iraq, which was untrue, and not even possible. The journalists did this because, after 9/11, they had no choice but to act patriotic and support Bush. By reaching out to sources close, the journalists left no reason to be questioned as rebellious or unpatriotic, but rather close to the inside scoop. Overall, the journalists failed because of a needed façade of patriotism.

3) What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations faced great pressure from American citizens. This included pressure to report patriotic stories and stories that shed the U.S. in a positive light. One example was given where a news station was told not to report too many civilian casualties, as it made the U.S. look cruel, but rather show images of the twin towers falling or juxtapose Saddam and an atomic bomb to look Iraq appeared more threatening. Additionally, Cheney’s interview made it harder for news organizations to doubt the facts of the war, because they would be directly opposing the White House.

4) How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

While some outlets chose to stay local and report on the ‘facts’ that floated around Washington, others, like the Knight Ridder, reported on the untruths and contradictions of the facts of the war. Most organization chose to stay pro-war, but the Kight Ridder claimed that their readers were the ones whose sons were being sent to war, and they felt the need to report the true facts. Because multiple resources repeated the same stories daily, they became fact, even in untrue. Conservative and liberal media alike reported these sensationalist stories, making it harder for the public to ascertain what was true. Overall, most media acted out of fear, and went with the mob rather than opposing, leading to patriotism, but also miscommunication and lies.

Online Assignment 2 - Travis Sheridan

2012-03-01T16:42:00.004-08:00

1) How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the 'facts'?

I do not feel the journalistic community lived up its responsibility at all. They failed to remain unbiased, letting emotion and patriotism take the place of reason and patience. In the heat of the moment journalists became mostly pro-Bush without questioning and frequently published stories that lacked credibility. It is the journalistic community's responsibility to present the public with important, legitimate information and this did not happen in the time of crisis.

2) Where they failed, why did they do so?

The journalists at this time were caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Many felt they had no choice but to support the Bush agenda as reporting anything negative about it would be considered un-American. Lack of evidence, although clear, was not something journalists could talk about without running the risk of being considered insensitive to America's plight. The other camp that approached the war with skepticism as is expected of journalists ran into issues as well. Though they were doing the admirable thing and analyzing the war in a skeptical way, they were ostracized by the mainstream media. For example, the Knight Ridder team, after doing research, felt that claims made by the Vice President had little evidence backing them up. The story was not published in New York or Washington, however, as it could not compete with the previous sensational story that Iraqi officials were searching high and low for materials to make an atomic bomb.

3) What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations faced extreme pressure to only report the war in a positive light. This pressure came from various places, including a government intent on proving the war's necessity. For example, after Ridder tried to break their story that the war began with a lack of clear evidence, Cheney came on various news stations to present the exact opposite viewpoint. There was a pressure from the general public to provide "scoop journalism" as each news organization wanted to break the latest on the war, unfortunately this was increasingly at the risk of lack of credibility. Also, news organizations themselves placed pressure on journalists to remain pro-Bush and pro-war. To report the news in the way it was not "supposed" to be reported at the time was to unleash the conservative hounds upon yourself, and with them Americans too blinded by patriotism to skeptically examine reasons for the war. One could risk his/her career by going against the grain of the media at this time.

4) How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

For the most part news outlets covered the issue in a similar way. There were, however, varying degrees of vehemence with which the news was reported and FOX News definitely led the pack in this regards. Playing into the patriotism angle even more than other stations, they were a driving force behind American citizens supporting the war. The Chief Executive of FOX even urged the President to respond as harshly as possible after the horrors of 9/11. All of the news outlets went along with the acceptable mainstream opinion. When people such as Donohue at MSNBC got out of line, there was a subtle message from government and other outlets of media that reminded him what was at stake if he continued these "anti-American" sentiments. Going along with the trend of "scoop journalism" was The New York Times, an organization guilty of publishing much information without proof to back it up. As a whole, the entire media handled the situation in an irresponsible way.

Online Assignment Two: America's Influence on the Press

2012-03-01T14:57:00.000-08:00

1. Howwell did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to presentthe ‘facts’?

Afterwatching this film, I think it is fair to say that journalists were veryconflicted in how to report the facts after 9/11 occurred. Many individualswould have looked down upon journalists had they reported accurate factsbecause of how it went against the government. And because the country was sounited after the events of 9/11, I’m sure very few journalists were willing toattack such a sensitive topic for most Americas. This was demonstrated in thescripted press conference with President Bush. It was astonishing to see thatthere were fixed questions that viewers didn’t have the opportunity to knowabout. It proved the lack of reliability in the information that journalistswere providing to the pubic. Instead of truthfully presenting facts,journalists made it easier for Americans to believe what the government wastelling them. This definitely helped the government in aiding the country’sapproval of going to war.

2. Wheredid they fail, why did they do so?

Asexplained in the previous question, many journalists failed to state the factsout of fear of seeming disloyal to the rest of the country. With the “surge ofsolidarity” after 9/11, journalists did not want to appear anti-American,therefore causing them to limit what they could say in the press. Along withthis was the lack of checking facts when receiving new information, specificallywith checking whether it was from multiple sources. They were not thinking ofthe possibility that they were proving their facts with only one source. Themovie mentioned these defectors that seemed to be giving credible information.However, the defectors were also giving the same information to governmentofficials, so when journalists called to check their facts, Washingtonconfirmed that it was true. Had they looked a little harder into these “facts”and sources, there may have been a strong incentive to be more honest with thepublic.

3. Whatkids of pressures did news organizations face?

Asstated in the beginning of the film, the best way to serve our country after9/11 was to be the best journalist possible. That meant stating the facts anddigging deep down to the heart of central issues. However, because this wassuch a sensitive time for our country, this task became very difficult. Whileit is the job of a journalist to report the facts, this often led to a feelingof disloyalty to their country. News organizations were under the pressure ofhaving an obligation to keep citizens well informed. But at the same time, thegovernment looked to these organizations to further rally support towards theidea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that there was aconnection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

4. Howdid different kinds of news outlets cover the issues differently? What was thedifference between these outlets?

Somenews outlets covered these issues differently based on how they were reactingto the government’s arguments. Certain news networks helped the government aidsociety towards being in favor of the war. They did this by balancing images ofcivilian causalities in Iraq with memories from 9/11. They did this to remindthe country of how necessary it was to be taking action against possibleterrorists. One of their main topics that news networks would enforce was theidea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Repeating this idea over andover again on multiple networks eventually caused it to become engraved in viewers’minds. While many news networks decided to take the route of helping thegovernment, Bob Simon from CBS claimed to have a clearer perspective because hewas overseas. He discredited other news outlets for saying that there was a connectionbetween Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. This seemed to be the more risky optionconsidering the government had been striving to convince the public of thisrelationship.

Online Assignment #2

2012-03-01T14:48:00.002-08:00

1) How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

The journalistic community failed to live up to its responsibility to present the facts. Journalists fed off the information that the government was trying to display and regurgitated it back to the public without deep investigation. If they did happen to research the issues at all they would only go as far as a few sources, who had most likely obtained the same information from the same place or person they had. The press allowed the tension of the 9/11 attacks to create a complete bias. The mainstream media were also successful in creating an atmosphere where those journalists who were trying to present facts were quickly turned down, given small sections in the paper, or faced discrimination.

2)Where they failed, why did they do so?

The journalistic community failed in that they let their bias and support for the war come into play. They failed to research their topics to the extent they deserved because they had created an atmosphere that anyone who questioned the administration would face hardships. It was then not a matter about what the public deserves, but rather a decision to save their reputation. If media spoke against the war or questioned anything, their business was not safe.

3)What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations faced the pressures of keeping their businesses running. They also had to keep their reputation and credibility intact. However these two things did not go hand in hand. There was the choice of being a credible and reliable organization and questioning what the majority of your country believed. You were then ridiculed and called an anti-American, thus ruining your reputation. In order to maintain successful, reporting whatever the government said was the only option. They were pressured into reporting things that clashed with their beliefs, and they were pressured to maintain a specific image.

4) How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

I do not think that the different types of new outlets covered the issues differently. There was still the aspect that they had to be in support of the war and the Bush Adminstration. Newspapers used powerful words to depict the comparisons between Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction and other false stories. Television used images of American pride to stir emotions and to sway America to be in favor or the war and believe that what they were saying was the truth.

Online Assignment #2 Abbey Jaeger

2012-03-01T14:37:00.000-08:00

1. How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the “facts”?

I don’t think that the journalistic community lived up to its responsibility because they were digging for information and exaggerating things just to create news. They wanted to be able to deliver answers, not paying attention to how honest and true the information was, which a journalists job is to give facts and honest answers to the public.

2. Where they failed, why did they do so?

They failed in the area of credible sources and the number of sources they were using. They were receiving information from an inside source and using only what he said as facts and evidence, without double checking it and backing it up with another source. Because of this, the public was under the wrong impression of what was truly happening. The public could have interpreted it wrong and chaos could have happened because of it.

3. What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

They had specific criteria of what information could be informed where. For example, the front page could not talk about civilian casualties. They also had to balance the number of casualties with remembrance of the events of 9/11. That way people weren’t questioning why we were in the war and to remind them of what and who they were fighting for. They also had a lot of pressure on the information they were giving. It had to be factual, relevant, and timely. They almost had to know what was going on before it even took place. Newspapers couldn’t criticize the government because if they did they would be seen as un-American. It was a tug of war between presenting factual info, or showing pride in America.

4. How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

Different kinds of news outlets covered issues differently in the way they supported and presented the events. TV used major government sources for their information, they would make sure to say that it was straight form The White House. Where as the press used less known sources but had a lot of evidence to back up their information. TV had a huge focus on American pride and making sure to support the war and not question the government because majority of their information was coming straight from the government. TV also had a tendency of using personal stories to lead up to main points. Besides sources, I feel majority of their information was covered the same though. The main focus was supporting the war.

Online Assignment 2 - Kelsey Ryan

2012-03-01T14:29:00.002-08:00

1) How well did the journalistic community live upto its responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

I don’t think the journalisticcommunity lived up to their responsibility very well, actually. I think theygrew hungry for answers and took any form of potential evidence and sold it asfact. The New York Times, one of the most reputable newspapers in the US, fellvictim to this.

2) Where they failed, why did they do so?

They failed to ensure thatthey had multiple sources to back up the claims they were receiving. When analleged “inside source” leaked information to them, they only took the time toensure that the government could validate the information. Considering that“inside source” talked to both the government and the newspaper, the factsseemed to line up. As a result, The New York Times trusted his word and had noother sources to back it up – a law all good journalists must live by.

3) What kinds of pressures did news organizationsface?

They had pressure in a lot ofdifferent areas. They had pressure to deliver relevant news stories to help theworld know what was going on and to know any leads that the government had.They also had pressure to give factual information, as any newspaper has pressureto do. Should they release a story without having their facts straight, theycould have critics jumping down their throats. Another pressure they faced wasto convey that the war wasn’t always a bad thing. They were told they had tobalance the amount of casualty stories with success stories. And lastly, one ofthe biggest pressures they faced was to be "American". They would have peoplecalling them up telling them that they were being “un-American” if they didn't agree with the Bush Administration or they didn't agree with things that were happening in the US.

4) How did different kinds of news outlets coverthe issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

Different news outlets weremore dramatic with their stories, like The New York Times and Vanity Fair,because they knew that people would read their stories. Other newspapers,typically smaller ones, didn’t get as much attention, but were very true withtheir facts. So basically, the smaller outlets did a more clear-cut job ofgiving out highly factual information and the largest newspapers and newsoutlets were more elaborate and dramatic in their articles. Another difference I think played into how news outlets delivered their information was the fact that some outlets agreed with the Bush Administration and some didn't. In other words, some newspapers critqued the Administration for their decisions to go to war while others supported it. This played a huge role in the types of stories they had and how they portrayed certain instances.

Online Assignment #2

2012-03-01T11:06:00.001-08:00

How well didthe journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the‘facts’?

The journalistic community has many responsibilitiesto the public, but one stands out: inform and mobilize the public. A goodjournalist needs to look at everything with skepticism and present accurateinformation to the public. The journalistic community during the Bushadministration seemingly failed to do fulfill this responsibility. Forthe most part they were all quite patriotic and pro-Bush. This bias inthe media was reflected not only in newspapers, but also on television. The New York Times, an extremely influential newspaper, interviewed Iraqidefectors, some of whom told grandiose stories about the extreme war tacticsissued by Saddam Hussein. The writers at the Times reported these storiesin the newspapers with little skepticism about their credibility. Thisskewed information gave the public an unclear image of what was actually goingon in the world, and in turn influenced many people to support the wareffort. This is not responsible. The "facts" presentedoften had little credibility.

Where they failed, why did they do so?

The journalistic community became aplatform for the Bush administration. This comes with certainconsequences. Media outlets voiced the opinions of the people in office,and some would say that it was propaganda. The problem with thejournalistic community becoming unified with a political administration is thatthey lose the power and ability to control the flow of information to thepublic. The media becomes an "arsenal of war" for those inpower.

What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

News organizations faced pressures frommany different angles. Advertisers from different corporations threatenednews outlets to balance criticisms. They wanted the news organizations tosupport Bush's efforts end Saddam's reign of terror. America was swept upin reports of Saddam and his link to 9/11. The public wanted to invadeIraq and stop Saddam before he struck again. The news outlets werepressured to enforce these common beliefs. It's the cyclical flow of themedia. These values of stopping terrorism were reinforced by mediaoutlets, and in turn were reflected by the public.

How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issuedifferently? What was the difference between these outlets?

There are some newsoutlets that have a certain political influence. Fox News, for example,is traditionally conservative, while CNN is more liberal. Leading up tothe war, Fox News accused CNN of being unpatriotic because they were notsupportive of Bush. Fox wanted to present the news in a way thatsupported all of Bush's ideas and goals. Similar to Fox, The New YorkTimes wrote articles that supported the political leaders. They wouldretell stories of Iraqi defectors that were mostly proven to be false. Sosome outlets reflected political ideas while others looked at them with skepticism.

Online Assignment #2 - Andrew Mackens

2012-02-29T13:12:00.001-08:00

1) How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the ‘facts’?

The Journalistic community as a whole did not live up to its responsibility to present the facts. Networks in support of the president and his administration only reported news regarding Al Qaeda and Iraq that would fuel public support for going to war with Iraq. This, combined with media being able to help stretch the small facts the U.S. government used to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, led to the failure of the journalistic community in reporting the facts. Even networks that did try to present the facts (or any negative image of the war) were pressured by other media to not present these images/facts.

2)Where they failed, why did they do so?

The journalistic community failed at these points because the individuals within it either A: Aligned with President Bush and his administration, creating the wrongful/restricting connection between the press and the government which leads to the propagandist journalism that was created, or B: Attempted to reveal the facts about the war and were effectively threatened or intimidated by other media companies into stopping the presentation of such negative images. The only choices were essentially to either do what the government told you or have your media business go under.

3)What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

Companies/organizations that aligned with the government were pressured to run news that was in support of the government and its pushing for going to war with Iraq. They were also pressured into reporting such information multiple times, because repetition help a message sink in with its audience. In contrast, companies/organizations that did not align with the government were pressured by other media organizations to not depict any negative images of the war, or else suffer dire consequences. The government at this time could never be portrayed in a negative light which lead the government and media companies to exert these pressures on each other.

4) How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

Different news outlets that all aligned with the government reported on the same stories, but had some variation in them to make them their own. On the whole, stories covering the issues regarding 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in a positive light were quite repetitive and sent the same message, because repetition and variation sinks in to the audience when creating messages with media. An example of this repetition was the constant use of the "smoking gun as a mushroom cloud" phrase when talking about the potential dangers of WMD in Iraq. In contrast, news outlets that did not align with the government did all they could to present negative images of the war and sway the public opinion to be against the war, but unfortunately were unable to continue presenting this these images once their businesses were threatened.

Online Assignment #2- Faizan Tahir

2012-02-28T18:45:00.002-08:00

1)      How well did the journalistic community live up to its responsibility to present the ‘facts’

Inthis particular context, the journalistic community was absent from their investigatory responsibility in presenting the real facts. Unfortunately for them, they were in something of a bind. Because of the sensitivity of the topic, the press was very hesitant to do research regarding the possession of WMDs and the US allegations as to the role of Iraq. Television news outlets reinforced information presented about Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and if the press presented information in a less supportive manner, people often misconstrued them as critical of the government and as a sign of disloyalty to the United States. There was substantially more information available about the topic but the press failed to look deeper for more information and question the ambiguity of the connections presented.

2)      Where they failed, why did they do so?

    This was a powerful time in the United States where the two traits that could connect everyone were patriotism and loyalty to the country. At a time where the nation was making critical decisions about its role in the world, journalists faced a very sticky situation. They failed to do proper background checks on stories, sources, and facts that were presented by the White House, Pentagon and State Department. No one was willing to call out the apparent lack of evidence in the presented allegations. It appears that many in the journalistic community wanted to be critical of the administration and the legitimacy of their arguments, but many TV news outlets scrutinized their journalists for that and referred to them as "bad Americans."

3)      What kinds of pressures did news organizations face?

    News organizations had to be extremely careful about the content they were printing and who was being portrayed favorably and who was not. As the interview mentioned, any reporting that appeared the slightest bit unpatriotic faced threats and repercussions from the community. For that reason, the press tried to avoid stories critical of the Bush administration. Anything that appeared as if journalists were insensitive to these life-changing issues would be attacked by the general public for being critical of the government. At such a sensitive and scary time, people needed the media at large to spur confidence in the administration that would carry them into a potential world conflict. This was an incredibly high expectation for the journalistic community to live up to and demanded a very sensitive form of analysis of the press.

4)      How did different kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between these outlets?

    Though the press wanted to take a more inquisitive role in the facts of the situation, they were hesitant to question a government leading a nation into war. They wanted to be critical of the administration and the feasibility of their allegations but many TV news outlets called out anyone that questioned the government as bad Americans. This brought press into an entirely different context. TV coverage tended to exclusively use the White House, Pentagon and State Department as sources so wouldn't question the information provided. Small populations among the press, however, would engage content more analytically to the point that people would grow critical of their loyalties. This forced them to be incredibly careful about the content they printed. Though there wasn't an incredibly transparent difference among the press and the TV news outlet, I feel it was easy to tell that there were different pressures among the two and they each took different approaches in their presentation of the news.

Online Assignment #2 - Lauren Tubbs

2012-02-27T21:19:00.001-08:00

1.) How well didthe journalistic community live up to its responsibility of presenting the“facts”?

Inthis situation, the journalistic community completely failed in itsresponsibility of presenting the real facts of the situation. It is the job of the press not to present acertain side’s opinion or to work to promote the ideas of the government oranother organization, but to give the public that consumes it the real facts ofwhat is happening. In the case of theyears leading up to the Iraqi War, the press continually stressed that SudaamHussein was linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which caused much more publichatred toward Iraq and more public support behind the idea of a War onTerrorism in Iraq. In reality, there wasmuch evidence that showed Hussein and Iraq were not connected to al-Qaeda andthe terrorist attacks on the U.S., and that the Bush administration’sassumptions that nuclear weapons were being manufactured and distributed inIraq could not be proven, even with all of the spying and “sources” the U.S.claims to have in Iraq right now. Thisis only one example of how the press did not live up to its responsibility ofpresenting the facts at this time.

2.) Where theyfailed, why did they do so?

The press failed in its responsibilityto present the facts because it felt it was unable to present the real truth ofthe situation without either getting into trouble with the government or beingaccused by the public of being unpatriotic. For example, the Knight Ridder newspaper writers wrote a storysupporting the other side of the debate, the side that shows how there is noreal evidence linking Hussein to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As the writer pointed out, how were U.S.spies, Hussein’s enemies, allowed into his top-secret buildings and agencies toget these statements and information, and how do they spy satellites we had onHussein and Iraq not have solid proof of the building of nuclear weapons whenit would require huge buildings and machinery to build such things? I think these are valid points, and yet allof the articles written by the Ridder to express this perspective were not putinto the news by the main press organizations in Washington or news sourceslike the New York Times. In this case,the stories weren’t put in because the government wanted to raise support forthe war and didn’t want their “facts” to be falsified, and therefore didn’tfulfill the press’ responsibility of accurately presenting the facts of asituation, or at least showing both sides of the position and allowing thepublic to decide which side to support by themselves.

3.) What kindsof pressures did news organizations face?

The two main kinds of pressures thenews organizations faced were pressure from the government censorship andpressure from the public to be patriotic during war times. Obviously at this time the government onlywanted certain ideas about Hussein and Iraq to be shown: they wanted to gainpublic support for the War on Terrorism against Iraq, so they didn’t want anynews to go against the war or spread ideas that Hussein and the 9/11 attacksweren’t related. This put pressures onthe news organizations to only include war-supporting ideas to avoid censorshipor criticism from the government. Sincethe citizens of the U.S. were very uneasy and feeling very patriotic after the9/11 attacks, any ideas that the president had to offer were taken veryseriously (such as the thought that killing Hussein and going to war with Iraqwas right because he had caused the attacks) and any ideas that were seen asdefending U.S. enemies (like saying Hussein didn’t have anything to do with theterrorist attacks) was seen as unpatriotic, and news organizations need thesupport and listeners to succeed, so they were feeling the pressures from thepublic to go along with the government as well.

4.) How diddifferent kinds of news outlets cover the issue differently? What was the difference between theseoutlets?

I don’t think there were very manydifferences in coverage between the different news outlets. The movie discussed how the papers onlyprinted stories proving that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, whichtherefore supported us going to war with Iraq. The news sources on TV did the same, using interviews with people theyclaimed as legitimate sources (like defectors and U.S. spies in Iraq) to makethe news seem even more valid. The moviealso showed a press conference held by President Bush to answer questions aboutthe possibility of going to war with Iraq; little did the public know, however,that the entire conference was scripted. The President had given certain audience members specific questions toask so that he had pre-planned answers, all directed to support the war. He would also have other people raise theirhands so it didn’t appear scripted. Inthis way, he was able to support the war while making it look like he was veryknowledgeable and that the citizens were supporting the war as well.

Media That Stir Emotions: Prepared Speech Outline

2012-02-15T21:12:00.000-08:00

I. Introduction

A. My example of being scared by the Sixth Sense

1. Glenn Sparks further explains how and why it’s socommon for children to be frightened after watching a scary movie

B. Piaget’stheory of development

1. Childrenages two to seven think perceptually

a. Willbe scared by physical features

2. Childrenin the next stage can have abstract thoughts

a. Willbe scared of things with realistic possibilities

II. Researchon college students

A. Oldenough to tell ourselves that the movie is not real

1. Sparks explains the uncomfortable feeling of moviesbeing able to convince us that these horrifying events could technically happen

B. Actualexperiment of listening to college students

1. Listenedto what movie they saw

2. Talkedabout their experience with watching it

a. Theirmemories proved the strong impact scary movies have, especially on children

III. Fear as a negative emotion

A. Webecome aroused during a scary movie

1. Oncethe movie is over we have a feeling of joy or relief

B. Thiscan lead to a kind of euphoria

IV. The media affects us emotionally

A. Movieshave a strong impact on behavior

B. “Magicbullet” connection

1. Shapesthe actions of viewers

2. Movies causes people, especially children, to remain afraid instead of rationallythinking about the likelihood of events in a movie being able to happen in reallife

V. Emotions go beyond just watching the film

A. Explain how gender roles are shaped during a scarymovie

1. Shapes who we are attracted to

B. Also shapes our emotions

1. This was conveyed towards the end of the article

2. More general claims about the effect of media on ourmoods and emotions

C. Have empathy for characters

1. Viewers feel for them even if they don’t know them

VI. Conclusion

A. Media has the power to bring out these intenseemotions

Research Report: Media That Stir Emotions - Glenn Sparks

2012-02-14T22:46:00.000-08:00

Glenn G. Sparks is currently a Professor/Associate Head of the Lamb School of Communication at Purdue University. He received his bachelors of the arts degree from Wheaton College and then continued to get his masters degree and Ph.D. from Northern Illinois University and University of Wisconsin-Madison. Glenn Sparks is the author of three books as well as multiple scholarly articles. He writes his work based on research and studies. His main focus has remained the cognitive and emotional effects of the media.

Sparks did a very nice job explaining why he went into the line of work that he is in within the chapter we read. As a child, he was terrorized by the department store mannequins that came alive in the show, Twilight Zone. This led him towards a career of studying the effects of frightening media on children. It appears that he has been very successful in this line of work. Later in the article, we find out that the reason Sparks was so frightened by the show is because he was only 6 when he watched it. He explains later, using Joanne Cantor’s research, that children from ages 2-7 interpret things through concrete, visual appearances. Therefore, because Sparks saw the scary mannequins at such a young age, he didn't have the ability to tell himself that they were not possible in real life.

The book that the excerpt we read was out of is Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview. This book is aimed towards students and is about mass media’s effects on society. It is known to be very engaging, mostly through explaining research that he has done. The reviews of the book have been exceptionally positive, especially for a book that is mainly used as a textbook. Students are happy with his writing style and say that he does a great job of explaining the scientific effects of his studies.

Through my research I have found that Glenn Sparks is over all a respected man in the research community. He backs up his research and makes sure that others are able to understand it as well. It is clear that he is passionate about his work and doesn't only want to reach a conclusion, but a correct one that makes sense to the general public. He does this because he is interested from his own past experiences. The fact that Sparks is a professor also shows that his main interest is spreading knowledge.

I think the chapter we read, Media That Stir Emotions, did a great job of explaining that media does not only shape how we feel, but how we feel also shapes how we interpret the media. People are looking for a certain emotion when they choose to watch a romantic comedy or a scary movie, and the movie delivers. Glenn Sparks made an interesting point that watching a scary movie does not necessarily make you more aggressive, like many studies suggest, but it does affect your emotions. This is sometimes ignored, but in many ways emotional reactions are more important and long term than behavioral reactions.

"Media that Stir Emotions" Questions

2012-02-14T20:43:00.000-08:00

“Media That Stir Emotions” Discussion Questions

Sparks begins the article bytalking about the effects of media violence and the effects of frighteningmedia. Sparks argues that the effectsof frightening media are “far more prevalent”. Do you agree?

Why is it that younger childrenare more frightened of “grotesque and menacing” characters in movies and TVshows, and older children are more afraid of things that could happen in reallife? Why have the older childrenoutgrown the fears of younger children? Why do the older children still fear things that are unrealistic?

Do you agree with the author’sclaim that people like watching scary movies because of the euphoria they feel whenthe film is over?

Are the MPAA ratings too vague “whenwarning parents about frightening content”?

How should the MPAA ratings bechanged to account for this? Should theybe changed?

"Wounded but Not Slain" Discussion Questions

2012-02-14T15:23:00.000-08:00

Wounded but Not Slain Discussion Questions:

1. Why do you think the magazine business is somewhat successful and the newspaper business if dying? Might it have something to do with the fact that magazines don't come out daily?

2. Which, in your opinion, is more to blame for the decline in the amount of people reading newspapers in today's society - internet or television?

3. Do you think the newspaper business will entirely die off? Why or why not?

4. What are some ways you think we could save the newspaper business?

Research Report: "Wounded but Not Slain: The Orderly Retreat of the American Newspaper" - James L. Baughman

2012-02-14T14:41:00.001-08:00

Upon readingthis article, I knew something seemed familiar. The content, the wording - I flipped back to the beginning of the articleand saw the author to be James L. Baughman. Then came the ah-ha moment: this was Professor Baughman that had givenus a lecture last week!

Little did I know when he lecturedto the Journalism 201 class that he had so much credibility in the topics hewas discussing. There wasn’t muchinformation about Baughman’s early life, but he is from Ohio and wound up goingto school at Harvard University, where he received a B.A. From there, he attended Colombia University,where he received his M.A., M. Phil., and Ph.D. in history. Despite his degrees being in history, hisareas of research included the history of journalism and the intertwining rolesof press and politics throughout American history. Already I could tell that Baughman was a knowledgeablesource on the article’s topics, which include the decline of the newspaperindustry, early television and its effects on the newspaper industries, and thenewfound effects of these media sources on the American population.

Baughman became a part of the UWfaculty in 1979, teaching a variety of journalism courses and offering some historylectures as well. After only six yearshere, he was named the UW Foundation Fetzer Bascom Professor of Journalism andMass Communications, and remained the director of the journalism school from2003 to 2009. Baughman has also written four books on mass media and itseffects in American history, and was chair of the Erik Barnouw Award Committeeof the Organization of American Historians, an organization that reviews andhonors deserving historical documentaries.

Obviously, James Baughman has anincredible amount of expertise in the field of mass media history, which isexactly what the article covers. Thearticle is part of a publication called AHistory of the Book in America, Volume 5. There are 33 different contributors to the book, and the ideas the bookexpresses include the social, economic, and cultural changes that have affectedthe print media since WWII and how books and other print sources are able toretain their place in an almost completely digital day and age.

All the reviews I read for thisvolume were positive, stating that it was well written and organized, interestingfor the general public, and a good resource for college students. There are three editors listed for this book,one of them being Michael Schudson (another name we should recognize). These reviews, as well as the vocabulary andstructure used in the article, show that the intended audience is an educatedone, maybe college level and above.

After this analysis, I can safely saythat Baughman’s article is a very reliable source of information on the topicscovered. I can’t say exactly whatBaughman’s motivation for writing this article was, but as we could observefrom lecture, he is enthusiastic about the mass media and its history, so Ibelieve he did it out of love for the topic and a desire to spread hisknowledge about it. I can also attest tothe benefits one can receive from reading the article because it reminds us ofthe trends of mass media that can, and undoubtedly will, continue to affectmedia consumers everywhere.

2012-02-09T10:25:00.000-08:00

Coda-The Advent of Media-Speech Notes Uploaded

intro-perfect location, communication excelled-important reasons

liberal constitutionalism
literacy
gov't control
social honeycomb

Emergence of press/freedom of speech

Stamp Act/Rebellion
Freedom of Speech
Some censorship

motion pictures
radio broadcasts

times of crisis

Governmental Structure

decentralized branches
growth of media paired with

circulation
ads
diverse audience

Outside factors

transportation improvements
increase in literacy
illiterates could still use media

Forces opinions in media

Walter Lippman

more driven reporting
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth
new vision in america

Social Sciences

social honeycomb idea
study/research portion
conclusions from study

Conclusion

Research Report - The Advent of the Media

2012-02-08T21:51:00.000-08:00

“The Advent of the Media” by Paul Starr

Upon further research of the man behind the excerpt from TheCreation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications, Idiscovered that Paul Starr, born in 1949, has earned some very impressive awardsand distinctions. While his online profiles are scant, his numerous achievementscolor his character as a dynamic, critically acclaimed intellectual. He is aPulitzer Prize-winning professor of Sociology and public affairs at PrincetonUniversity. Starr earned his B.A. from Columbia and a Ph. D. from Harvard. Hiswork The Social Transformation of American Medicine won him the 1984Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction and the Bancroft Prize. The book that “TheAdvent of Media” was taken from, The Creation of Media (Basic Books,2004), received the 2005 Goldsmith Book Prize.

Starr’s other works include diverse topics of politics,social trends, and public policy. Specific areas that his books focus on arehealthcare, American society, domestic and foreign policy, liberalism,communication and information, and privatization. He’s especially known for hisblend of idealism and pragmatism, and is a highly regarded public speaker onhis areas of expertise. Many critics have written positive reviews on his stancesand works, describing him as intelligent, thorough, and insightful.

Starr seems to support the “well informed citizen”, as hisworks are meant to educate the common man on important social issues and onhistorical events that have shaped the way mass media behaves today. Hisinterweaving of different countries and policies in comparison to the UnitedStates enhances understanding and supports his theories. He did an excellentjob in emphasizing the legislature that both enabled and disabled media indifferent countries. While many of his arguments are objective, slightlyliberal perspectives often seep into his commentary. This isn’t surprising,considering he is the co-founder of the liberal magazine created in 1990 calledThe American Prospect.

The Creation of the Media was published by BasicBooks in 2004. The company prides itself in being “The leading publisher ofserious nonfiction by leading intellectuals, scholars, and journalists”, so hiswork is one among many distinguished scholarly pieces of literature. His bookcovers an expansive and almost overwhelming amount of information to an extremedepth, making the work a less than simple read.

Starr’s thorough knowledge of policy, both past and present,is especially evident in “The Advent of the Media”. His intelligent commentaryon the three overarching realities of the mid-twentieth century really helpedto put in perspective how the media was able to flourish and gain immense powerand influence. I think his prestigious schooling from rigorous universitiesreally shows through in a polished, thorough, and well organized work. I foundhis exploration on the evolution of journalistic style to be especiallyinteresting, as he hits on the modern practice of aggressive, sensationaljournalism and how media is on a “frenzied quest for attention”.

Overall, I found the work thorough and intelligentlyorganized and written. It was an exhausting read, but highly rewarding withbreadth and quality of content.

Meghan Stark

How Luther Went Viral- Speech

2012-02-08T20:51:00.000-08:00

Social Media: Unwired

“Socialmedia are not unprecedented: rather they are the continuation of a longtradition” (p. 96). Throughout theduration of this tradition, the media has led to many humanitarian debacles aswell as triumphs that have greatly shaped today’s society. An occurrence in the 16^thcentury that can be seen as a debacle or triumph, depending on from whoseperspective one analyzes the situation, is none other than when Martin Lutherutilized the new media of the century to, as we would say in our day in age,“go viral” with a message. Hismessage, the “95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” which henailed to the church door in Wittenberg, was very controversial, as it attackedthe Church by denouncing the payment of indulgences. This single piece of writing along with other ideas and newways to distribute these ideas to the people through new sources of mediaultimately led to a small revolution against the Church, which by the end wouldbe called the Reformation.

Martin Luther was able to use pamphlets, which werebasically small paperback books, ballads and woodcuts and distribute them invarious social circles to get the word out about his proposed reform. To begin with, the “95 Theses” werewritten in Latin, however once they became more and more popular, they weretranslated to German in an effort to reach more of the public as opposed toonly the highly educated who knew Latin. This turned out to be a great success and within weeks the “95 Theses”had spread like an epidemic across Germany. However, it is considered by some that the true start of theReformation began after pamphlets were thrown into the mix. Pamphlets were a good way to circulateLuther’s works because they did not take long to make, and they were easilytransported and copied by other printers. By the close of the first decade of the Reformation an astounding 6 to 7million pamphlets had been printed and could be found nearly in every publicestablishment.

Theother two forms of media that were employed during the period of theReformation were the use of ballads and woodcuts. The creation of ballads, which usually combined commonmelodies with original lyrics, played a key role in reaching out to theilliterate. Many people sang the ballads amongst each other making it easy foranyone nearby to pick up on the words. Woodcuts were also directed at the illiterate. Although they incorporated some words, woodcuts were mostlygraphic and illustrated their points clearly. Eventually, some of these woodcuts became too much for theChurch too handle and prompted an attempt at censorship, which was neverfulfilled. For example, one suchwoodcut known as “The Origin of Monks,” depicts a pile of monks dropping out ofa devil’s backside, which pretty much speaks for itself.

Inmany ways, I think that this article not only tells the story of past media,but today’s media as well. Tobegin with, I agree with the statement by the text that says the reprinting ofpamphlets and ballads are very similar to today’s “likes” on Facebook and“retweets” on Twitter. I agreewith this because “likes” and “retweets” are seen on the newsfeed, which incorporatesnot only all of one’s “friends,” but also the “friends” of their “friends,”thus circulating posts throughout the web and bringing people together. Pamphlets and ballads also broughtpeople together, but in place of the internet, where people came in contact, werelocal taverns. Another part ofthis article that parallels today’s media is the attempt by the Church tosensor woodcuts. In my mind, thisis like the attempt of SOPA to censor the internet. In the article, the Church could not get enough support fromthe public for censorship, I do not think SOPA will be able to attain enoughsupport as well. However, if SOPAdoes get the correct amount of votes to censor the internet there will alwaysbe somebody that finds a loophole, as also seen in this article when certainprinters were forced to shut down in specific cities, but somehow pamphletsstill found their way in.

Inconclusion, through this article it is seen that media has served as a vehicleof communication for quite sometime. Although the vehicles of communication that we use today are moretechnologically advanced than the ones utilized in the 16^th century,the effect that this communication has on society has not changed. In the 16^th century, certainforms of social media brought people together and then enabled them to “reform”society, working as one rather than separate entities and now media rangingfrom newspapers to the internet achieve the same goal. Because of this I think Jack Johnsonsaid it best, “we’re better when we’re together.”

The Unbeautiful Game-Discussion Questions

2012-02-08T18:31:00.000-08:00

1. Do you think as a society we follow the magic bullet model where we make the opinions and the media reports it, or does the media/opinion leaders report thus shaping/creating our opinions?

2. Does media add or take away from today's world?

3. As you are reading the newspaper or listening to the news or radio, are you aware of the source you are receiving information from and does it influence your opinions about the information you are reading/listening to?

Research Report- “The Unbeautiful Game”

2012-02-08T00:04:00.000-08:00

“The Unbeautiful Game” by Adam Gopnik

Ona surface level, Adam Gopnik’s article, “The Unbeautiful Game,” appears as asports fan’s response to a favored sport and its changing climate. Uponcompletion of the article, I questioned the article’s correlation to coursecontent and redirected my attention to Adam Gopnik’s personal history andbackground for insight.

Gopnik’sinterests and educational background appeared to be as widespread as possible,showing little evidence of connections. His reputation has attracted wideaudiences, his writings ranging from topics of parenting to the relationshipbetween Darwinian theory and religion. In 1986, he began his career as a writerfor The New Yorker, publishing apiece with topics including baseball, childhood and Renaissance art. Gopnik’swriting gained encouraging reception and revealed that, while his essays oftenvaried in subject, they expressed greater meaning than what was apparent.

Irecognized that Gopnik’s works lack obvious associations, a very deliberatemechanism used as the means by which he expresses greater ideas. Though hisarticle originally appeared as a discourse on a changing sport to which headmired greatly, closer examination revealed that it was a simple analogy toexpose a broader commentary on media’s influence in popular culture, such as intelevised sports games. He avoids providing readers with statistics and tidbitsof information about football as a sport, rather providing an examination ofthe role of media in shaping our perspectives and outlooks on content, in thisparticular example, while viewing a football game.

Gopnikconsistently highlights how things can be interpreted in many ways depending onthe perspective in which they are viewed. He explores this by outlining thevarious ways professional football can be considered unbeautiful, despite theway it can be glamorously portrayed on television. He suggests that watching agame on television in contrast to watching it from the stands provides two verydifferent outlooks, explaining that on TV, we see players withsignificant freedom to act rather that choosing from choices forced of their surroundings.He contrasts this to the perspective of the players on the field, thoseathletes who have limited time to make a decision and portray their “suddenmoments of frenzied improvisation.”

Gopnikthen relates this concept of perceptions to how changes in perceptions of football,being shaped by the media to elicit a very particular response from the generalpublic. Like many things, football appears to be shifting toward the side ofcorporatism, marketing sports as a moneymaking endeavor over the value the gameonce held. Football has become a very commercialized sport where branding andmedia interpretation restricts the free expression of the players and coaches. Thisis the underlying idea that Gopnik tries to express, reiterating about media’sinfluential role in popular culture.

AdamGopnik uses “The Unbeautiful Game” andits discussion of the recent changes in football to express his opinions on thechanging influence of the media. He tries to encourage readers to criticallyexamine the growing presence of media in modern society and its influence inshaping our perceptions of some of some of our most familiar and comfortingpastimes.

Discussion Questions for "Coda: The Advent of the Media" (Starr, 2004)

2012-02-07T11:43:00.000-08:00

1. While European governments were able to regulate media such as the press in the late 17th and 18th century and consequently form a media owned by the government, why were the 13 colonies the only group of people or coalition of areas that resisted this type of media ownership, which eventually led to the creation of America's commercial media?

2. The article states that regulation of media in the 1920s shifted from print to film and broadcasting because many people found film and broadcasting to be more dangerous media than print. Do you believe that this held true in the 1920s, or was print media still the most dangerous form of media at the time? What do you think the levels of danger in media are at today?

3. With the description of Lazarsfeld's study regarding the "two step flow" process of media and opinion leaders, do you believe that the culture of the media today is the same--where most people listen to "opinion leaders" and hear what they want to hear--or has there been a shift toward individuals making the effort to find their own information and making their own opinions based off what they find?

4. It is obvious why a 1930s fascist Germany and a 1930s communist Russia would desire to control its country's media as opposed to having a commercial media. So why do we see Great Britain and other nations--most of which are democratic--continue to use a media that is owned by the government?

5. How did World War I and the American military's invested interest in new communications technologies and media affect the growth of mass media today? Would the forms of media that the American military had taken interest in (telegraph, radio, etc.) have grown in the same manner that they have if the American military had not taken interest in them?

Penny Press Discussion

2012-02-01T10:42:00.000-08:00

1. What was the view of the very first newspapers, not the penny paper, and how did they influence society?

2 .Why was the penny paper so powerful and how was it different than other news papers?

3. What were some similarities among the commercial press and the party press?

4. In what ways did the penny paper change advertising?

5. What are some of the explanations to the revolution in journalism and which do you feel is most accurate?

"Discovering the News" Research Report

2012-02-01T07:28:00.000-08:00

Before I even began to read Michael Schudson's "Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers" I knew that I was going to have to spend a lot of time picking apart the reading, simply because of how long it is. Luckily for me, Michael Schudson is very well known in the world of journalism and there is quite a bit of information on him that would help me build a great profile for him, so that I could better understand his ideas and this piece in particular.

Michael Schudson hails from Milwaukee, Wisconsin and has an extensive background in the world of journalism and sociology. In Chapter 1 of "Discovering the News", titled "The Revolution in American Journalism in the Age of Egalitarianism: The Penny Press" Schudson talks about the vital role that the penny press played in the revolution of American journalism. I would imagine that his credentials relating to sociology greatly influenced and supported many of his thoughts in this reading due to the very "society based" feel of this particular chapter. Also, another small factor that might have influenced his views may be that he was born in 1946, and so during his youth (1950s-60s) was a time when the rules of American society were being transformed and re-evaluated. But for the larger part of the reading, his ideas are very well constructed and his knowledge of societal changes is obvious. From what I learned from the reading, when Schudson was writing this, he was trying to do two things. In a social aspect, he was trying to take us back to the time of the emergence of the penny press to show us all the and effects it had on society. In a more revolutionary aspect, he is trying to show his readers that the modern media we see today is all traced back to this exciting revolution of journalism that originated with these six penny papers, and why they were so successful.

He spends a lot of time talking about the changes in journalism and the tremendous effects on society, and vice versa. For example, he talks about how the penny papers re-invented the "news" with not only economic organization and political stance, but also in content. The penny press reflected the average social life of an ever-changing middle class in the 1830s in a way that was unprecedented. This all is representative of Schudson's background with Sociology and Journalism.

The publication of the book (Basic Books Inc, New York) also tells me that this reading will be based on social aspects. Basic Books Inc is known to publish books specifically in the fields of psychology, philosophy, economics, science, politics, sociology...etc. It targets an audience that is comprised of educated individuals who are interested in reading about such topics. This would explain why the material is given in such an informative, "history lecture" type way.

The idea of this reading is to inform the readers about the emergence of reportorial journalism and to recognize the tremendous role the penny press played in this revolution. It's also to help people understand how these penny papers built a whole new culture for society that was based on a new "democratic market." This book is strongly factual and many aspiring journalists and historians alike would benefit from reading it.

"How Luther Went Viral" Research Report

2012-01-31T14:57:00.000-08:00

When beginning my research on “How Luther Went Viral” I quickly realized that I would have to get creative to delve deeply into the article. Due to the fact that the piece was published in The Economist, a magazine that chooses not to divulge the names of individual authors that contribute, I was forced to instead focus heavily on content presented in the context of the article along with the publication in which it was published to decipher the author’s intent.

Drawing a correlation between the new social media of Luther’s time in printed media and the new social media of our time in online social networks is easily identifiable as the primary purpose of the article. The author wants to remind readers that social media is not a new phenomenon as many are led to believe, but rather a “continuation of a long tradition”(96). Directed at an intelligent audience that consumes mass amounts of media but is perhaps too caught up in present forms of media to realize the rich history of previous explosions of “new” types of media, the article presents obvious similarities between the effects and power of new social media both past and present.

One such metaphor the author, who I feel is likely a historian, draws upon is that of Martin Luther’s widespread usage of print media in his Reformation to the prevalence of viral online media, specifically Facebook and Twitter, in the Arab Spring movement. By connecting past and current events the author appeals to an educated audience able to appreciate the significance that past occurrences have to important current events. As such, the article was well received around the internet and considered insightful by many readers.

To further understand the article one must understand the publication in which it appears. The vast majority of the audience targeted by The Economist is well educated and affluent. As of 2006 nearly two out of three readers had incomes of over $100,000 per year, a nod perhaps not only to The Economist’s poignant, thought-provoking articles but also to the arguably elitist mentality shared by writers and subscribers alike. With the majority of its readers being well educated, two common themes in The Economist are an imposing vocabulary and a lack of explanation of simple background ideas. Contributors to The Economist often assume the reader has a general working knowledge of the topic so that articles can delve deeply into the content rather than wasting time and space laying groundwork by regurgitating basic information.

Having done background research and read the article multiple times, I can say with confidence that we should support the message presented. Along with the author, I agree that it’s important to realize how current social media links humans to our past. In just a brief piece the anonymous author instills in us a respect of technologies and societies past, along with an appreciation of the phenomenon that is social media.

Discussion Questions for the "How Luther Went Viral" article

2012-01-30T20:29:00.000-08:00

1. Of the explanations for the media boom, namely printing, oral transmission, and the amassment of a public opinion, which do you think was the most important? Or is there another explanation?

2. Can Luther be credited completely for the Reformation because his "95 Theses" kickstarted the movement in sharing an opinion among society?

3. The article mentions "networked public" and "audience" as two key phrases to remember when thinking about the media boom. What do these phrases mean and how are they different? How are they important?

4. The author of the article likens reprints to "Likes" and "retweets" today. Do you agree with this assessment? Why were reprints important?

5. There were other forms of media besides newspapers and pamphlets. Music and images also spread throughout different countries adding to the Reformation. Of the three, written, sung, and pictured, which do you think was/is the most effective? Why?

6. Today, the Reformation can be compared to the Arab spring. How are these movements alike? How are they different?