1. In Chapter 12 Charles Larsen points out an interesting fact when he states that “the power of the printed word has diminished to some degree” (pg. 288), in highlighting the drop of readership among newspapers. In class we discussed the various reasons that this may be the case when we read the letter to the editor from a high school student who encouraged the reading of newspapers. As a class we were able to discuss why the Internet had become so much more convenient and user friendly for those looking for fast, local, and current news. N reading this chapter, however, I believe Larsen has pointed out another major hindrance to the newspaper when he discusses the rates of illiteracy among people. The 30% of illiteracy among Americans is from 1993, but it does still exist today. In your opinion does the problem of illiteracy still affect the survival of newspapers today? Have people become too lazy to read and keep up with the growth of the printed word?
2. In discussing the agenda setting being done by the media, Larsen wants to encourage consumers of media to be critical and open to all avenues of the media. Those may seem contradictory but by open he wants consumers to be able to look at a wide variety of media so that a fuller, more complete picture can be seen. “With several sources telling you what to think about, you can decide both what to think and what to think about” (pg. 307). Every form of media has an agenda that it wants to set, whether its television, newspaper, radio, or Internet. The question I pose to this part of his article is if the Internet has helped in being more open to new avenues of news, or if it has added more distractions to what we are trying to find out? The Internet as an electronic word has brought in tons more advertisements and many more avenues for people to share their view on a certain topic. So do all of these new advertisements, blogs, and articles added by the Internet distract us from what may be the correct news or does it help us as consumers?
3. The final question I would like to ask refers back to Larsen’s emphasis on the manipulation and persuasion of our media. The media doesn’t tell us what to think but it does influence what we think about. By ignoring certain information and being influenced by sponsors on what to report, the messages we receive can be severely distorted. In my communication class from last quarter we discussed the bias that each major media source is influenced by and it was disturbing to hear how much is hidden and censored from us as consumers. If the media is catering to the audience to get more viewers, instead of catering to the issues and informing us, then how can we be sure what facts are true? In thinking back on the various news stations you’ve watched, or newspapers you’ve read, can you see the bias of our media being portrayed in the stories? Do you think that by reading, or watching, several different broadcasts on the same issue can help us get past these biases as consumers?
In response to question 2:
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that every media outlet has a bias and while some are clearly stronger than others (NPR vs. MSNBC or Fox News vs. Rush Limbaugh), it is clear that with more news sources comes more bias. In many instances, the new media is doing more to harm the public than it is to help us find the objective truth in a given situation. Larsen assumes that new news outlets will make more viewpoints and biases available and accessible to average citizens, but it also makes it much easier to ignore things that go against what we want to believe.
The vast majority of bloggers are one sided and, frankly, not worthy of smart people’s attention. There are a great many people (myself included on occasion) who think their opinion is valid and worthy of praise and discussion. 99% of the time, it’s not even close.
Aside from reduced news quality, how many liberals read conservative blogs objectively and vice-versa? I would submit that more often than not, these new media sources are not at all meant for use as tools to help create a better understanding of the truth. No, instead they are often used as nothing more than online meeting spots for likeminded people to come together, pat each other on the back, decide just how awesome they are and then move on with their lives. There are no standards of ethics, no guidelines and no real editorial function to most blog sites. How can this possibly be taken seriously as a news source by serious people? In short, it can’t.
Clearly there are exceptions to this generalized statement. There are SOME sites that do a fantastic job at providing fresh but legitimate perspectives and new ways of covering current events. And I don’t want to diminish the worth of the blog too far; it is a powerful and useful political tool for people to discuss and debate the issues and form more reasoned arguments. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves or over-inflate our generational ego: bloggers as a whole are very harmful when they are taken as a true news source.
Your question gets to a very important point; we are consumers. Like every other market, the news media market is a mix of dumb and smart people. Some are good at finding objectivity via various sources and some are ignorant peons simply looking for views that are the same as theirs and nothing more. The advent of blogs has certainly made it easier for idiots to remain in their pathetic state.