“All the News that Fits”
Although this article was written in 1983, the central idea of the article is still very true. The article discusses how anchormen and newscasters distract the viewers from the news it is presenting. For example, the anchorman could be announcing a natural disaster such as a tornado, tsunami, hurricane, etc. ,but if the anchorman is smiling and saying non-threatening, cheerful words, the viewer will most likely take the news better than if the anchorman looked scared and was telling everyone to panic. The same could go for any type of situation whether it is weather, crime, or world news. As long as the anchorman is presenting the news well and in a happy manner, the viewer will most likely be optimistic about the news. A quote in the article from Art Buchwald that demonstrates this is, “I remember once when the astronauts were in trouble and I was worried, my wife said, ‘Don’t worry, Walter will solve the problem.’ Twenty minutes later Walter came back on the air…and fixed it." This goes to show that it is just how you present the news that can make it seem much better. Newscasters use the technique of 'happy news' to make the audience believe that the serious and tragic areas of the news report aren't as bad as they may seem.
I believe that this is still in effect today. I especially see it on weather channels when they are reporting a thunderstorm. Obviously a thunderstorm is nothing too serious and tragic, but it can put a damper on a lot of people's days and usually is looked at as gloomy. Whenever the weather reporter says that there will be a thunderstorm, he always announces it is a cheerful tone and almost looks happy about it. Even on the weather channel when there is no weatherman, they will show the 7-day forecast will cheerful music in the background making the bad weather go almost unnoticed. On local news stations, I notice that if the newscasters are reporting a sad article, they will surround it with happy reports.
“With These Words I Can Sell You Anything”
This article describes how companies use specific wording to sell products. For example, "New and Improved," are the most frequently used words in advertising that convince the consumer that the product is better than the last or better than its competitor. In the article, Lutz explains that the product is commonly not new or improved, but changed insiginficanlty to legally use the term. These are examples of 'weasel words,' or words that describe a product to make it seem better and more desirable than it really is.
I can definitely say that I have experienced these weasel words before. They are seen with literally every product, whether it is food, toys, appliances, or toiletries. A personal example of mine is the use of weasel words with baseball bats. When I was younger, I would get a magazine called 'Baseball Express." Every year there would be 'new and improved' models of these bats made of 'high performance' material with a big sweet spot and the magazine would also use science and technology to back up why their bat has become so improved and why it is the best. A perfect example would be this commercial for an Easton Stealth baseball bat advertised by Sports Authority: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LtGbCm_tv4
Clips
Relative to the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LtGbCm_tv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iPu6GNnhKs
Can't believe it's on tv/effects me negatively: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEWeOhezlwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdtejCR413c
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
NET NEUTRALITY
Net Neutrality, or Network Neutrality, is defined as 'a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed.' Net Neutrality is a network design that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. This concept basically supports the idea of no one piece of information or news being held at a more significant level than another. Network Neutrality would be most recognized and useful when used on the internet because it is the way in which the majority of people in the world, let alone America, receive their news. Net neutrality allows people to access different websites from a search engine, such as Google. The following video demonstrates net neutrality very clearly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
With net neutrality, every network company has the same speed and quality for their internet and search engines. Without it, broadband servers such as Comcast or AT&T would be able to charge search engine companies money so that their search engine could run fast. For example, Comcast Internet could become a gatekeeper and block, slow down, and decrease the quality of Google, which would cause Google to lose money. Google would then pay Comcast a sum of money in order to keep their search engine alive and prevent the company from losing or even going out of business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11kLmWha6o
There are many arguments circulating about this concept. Some say that not allowing net neutrality would hurt the economy even more. It could put search engines out of business as well as Internet providers. Net neutrality also meets internet standards because it does not discriminate.
An argument against network neutrality is that it provides innovation and investment. As it could put some companies out of business, it could also cause an internet provider to become very popular which would make it worth a lot of money.
I am for network neutrality. I am for it because I do not think it is fair for an Internet company to be able to decide which sites go fast or slow, or which ones don't load at all. This could cause many small, growing internet companies to lose major business. People who might start a business online and create their own website could be put out of business also if their website is shut off. I do not think it would be fair for American citizens if net neutrality is taken away because there is a high risk of damaging our economy even more.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11kLmWha6o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
With net neutrality, every network company has the same speed and quality for their internet and search engines. Without it, broadband servers such as Comcast or AT&T would be able to charge search engine companies money so that their search engine could run fast. For example, Comcast Internet could become a gatekeeper and block, slow down, and decrease the quality of Google, which would cause Google to lose money. Google would then pay Comcast a sum of money in order to keep their search engine alive and prevent the company from losing or even going out of business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11kLmWha6o
There are many arguments circulating about this concept. Some say that not allowing net neutrality would hurt the economy even more. It could put search engines out of business as well as Internet providers. Net neutrality also meets internet standards because it does not discriminate.
An argument against network neutrality is that it provides innovation and investment. As it could put some companies out of business, it could also cause an internet provider to become very popular which would make it worth a lot of money.
I am for network neutrality. I am for it because I do not think it is fair for an Internet company to be able to decide which sites go fast or slow, or which ones don't load at all. This could cause many small, growing internet companies to lose major business. People who might start a business online and create their own website could be put out of business also if their website is shut off. I do not think it would be fair for American citizens if net neutrality is taken away because there is a high risk of damaging our economy even more.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11kLmWha6o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand
After reading this article, I am much more aware of the fabrication of news. Military officers had major pull during the War in a Iraq with media. "Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon and White House officials believed the military analysts could play a crucial role in helping overcome this resistance." This quote shows that the analysts truly did have an impact on American citizens. The government was using the media to change the citizens' minds so that more people would agree with the war. A paragraph that I found interesting was : "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”" This caught my eye because it shows proof of the government manipulating the media in way that would change the American citizens' opinions.
According to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_e8Fsw4jls , the Pentagon used military analysts as a "media Trojan horse" to spread pro-war propaganda to Americans.
Another site agrees (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=7930) stating that "It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda." By creating these social media profiles, not only can they sway the public opinion but they also can use the profiles as surveillences to view the common public opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_yOfwB3VfQ also demonstrates this idea. This is a video about how the U.S Pentagon used the Media to full the people by hiring retired generals to inject pro-Iraq-war ideas into the masses.
A last site that I came across was http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/07/afghanistan-iran-pilger-war , which describes how the media manages to cover up atrocities of war under the Pentagon's word.
Personally, I find this all ridiculous on our government's part. We live in a democracy with free press and we should have the right to know the truth about what is going on over seas. They should not be able to cover up atrocities of war and promote the war if it is not going well. We have the right to know whether or not the war is going well or not.
I chose the above articles because they all related to the topic of the Pentagon manipulating the media and also support my stance of how ridiculous and un-American this act is.
According to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_e8Fsw4jls , the Pentagon used military analysts as a "media Trojan horse" to spread pro-war propaganda to Americans.
Another site agrees (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=7930) stating that "It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda." By creating these social media profiles, not only can they sway the public opinion but they also can use the profiles as surveillences to view the common public opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_yOfwB3VfQ also demonstrates this idea. This is a video about how the U.S Pentagon used the Media to full the people by hiring retired generals to inject pro-Iraq-war ideas into the masses.
A last site that I came across was http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/07/afghanistan-iran-pilger-war , which describes how the media manages to cover up atrocities of war under the Pentagon's word.
Personally, I find this all ridiculous on our government's part. We live in a democracy with free press and we should have the right to know the truth about what is going on over seas. They should not be able to cover up atrocities of war and promote the war if it is not going well. We have the right to know whether or not the war is going well or not.
I chose the above articles because they all related to the topic of the Pentagon manipulating the media and also support my stance of how ridiculous and un-American this act is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)