ISSUES AND THE NEWS: TABLOIDIZATION IN THE MEDIA

There are often two types of news referred to in the mainstream media: 'serious' news, which provides important information to the masses, and 'tabloid' news, which sensationalize issues of little value whilst propagating rumors and gossip. Tabloid news has long been juxtaposed with 'serious journalism' as a watered-down, celebrity-obsessed, socially detestable form of media. But in recent times, the lines between 'serious' news and tabloid fare have become blurred, as more and more supposedly reputable news networks run with sensational headlines for extended periods of time, in attempts to boost their audiences and profits. Is this tabloidization warranted? Is this what mainstream viewers really want to watch, or what they deserve to be shown? And are these issues really newsworthy or should they be left as tabloid fodder where they belong? 

I think that we, as journalism scholars, tend to take a moral high ground and look down upon tabloid news outlets. Whilst I believe that these publications do not bring out the best in journalists, ethically or stylistically, I think that these publications fill a niche in the market for people that are interested in this information. Tabloids have been around for many years, and gossip and the cult of celebrity have appealed to audiences for many more. It is unrealistic to believe that we should get rid of these publications, or that they would leave quietly. It is also unrealistic to believe that tabloidization of the mainstream news won't occur, in the current climate of ratings wars and bids to appease advertisers and gain revenue. It is also hard to tell what really should be considered 'serious' news these days. Who should be the gatekeeper of such information, and who should decide what classifies as serious and what doesn't? 

I think it is up to audiences of media outlets that pride themselves on their 'serious' content, such as The New York Times, to demand that the news being delivered to them be predominantly of a socially significant nature. However, I don't think we should put a blanket-ban on all celebrity related news content, because celebrity stories can open up opportunities for discussion of issues that need addressing in our communities. For example, some might say that the coverage of the death of actor Heath Ledger by mainstream media bordered on tabloid fodder. However, his death also prompted discussion in the media about issues of depression, substance abuse, the use of sleeping pills and even  gay rights when members of the Westboro Baptist Church attempted to protest at his funeral. This demonstrates that sometimes what appear to be tabloid stories can provide a greater social utility than simply satiating the public's hunger for celebrity gossip. 

 

Tabloid news has a place in the media, as does more serious content. Whilst I believe the degree to which so called 'serious' news outlets should adopt sensational topics should be kept to a minimum, I believe that tabloid news can sometimes serve to inform, as well as entertain, and should be included into the mainstream sector when it does so. 

ISSUES AND THE NEWS: JEFF COHEN GUEST SPEAKER

I think that Jeff Cohen provided our class with an interesting and intriguing insight into the world of emerging independent media. Jeff's comments about various successful independent media producers, such as Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill from 'Democracy Now!' filled me with hope for the future of journalism, in the onset of a declining newspaper and television sector. However, I found Jeff's experiences with the mainstream media, at both FOX News and MSNBC, to be rather disturbing insights into the way bias plays a major role in commercial television news. 

Whilst Jeff's accounts of right-wing bias at the notoriously conservative FOX network were somewhat expected, I was shocked to discover that MSNBC held such blatant prejudices. These networks both seemed to laugh in the face of objectivity, and I was disturbed that they were allowed to get away with being so obviously inclined to one political schema. The firing of Phil Donahue because he was decidedly in opposition to the war in Iraq, which did not fit in with the agenda or party lines of MSNBC at the time, baffled me as his show 'Donahue' received the top ratings for the network. However, it was also interesting that Jeff stated that all media groups, independent, commercial and otherwise, tend to have agendas that they follow. This is particularly clear in the independent sector, but I find independent political bends somewhat more acceptable because many, for example The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report, are blatantly upfront about their ideological leanings, whereas other commercial media outlets attempt to hide them. I think that all media groups have their own particular political leanings and biases, because as we have discovered in previous weeks objectivity in the news can be difficult to maintain completely. But the problems arise when they attempt to present to their audiences an unbiased facade, whilst maintaining a hidden agenda. 

Despite somewhat increasing my distrust of the mainstream media, Jeff's lecture inspired me to pay closer attention to independent media outlets. I believe that independent media outlets are leading the way into the new media frontier, and that we should all acknowledge that in the rapidly evolving media game, independent media groups are going to become main players. 

ISSUES AND THE NEWS: RETHINKING OBJECTIVITY

For or against?

I initially believed that as a budding media professional I was completely ‘for’ objectivity, that for a journalist to be biased would be unprofessional, unethical, and against one of the fundamental pillars upon which good reporting is based. However, I realized that I am more in favour of receiving the whole story, of gaining some insight and understanding about the issues which are being reported on, about discovering the truth of a matter free from political spin or ‘balancing’ which distorts and misrepresents public opinion. I want to know what is really going on, not the superficial, vanilla-flavored, PR-polished, censored version of events. It may be argued that analysis of issues should be left to the politicians, and that it is up to journalists to report on what they see, rather than what they believe. But, as ‘society’s watchdogs’ it is imperative that journalists are able to give readers greater context and insight into issues, and if they need to include analysis in order to do so and keep public officials accountable, they should be able to. I still believe that personal biases in reporting can prove very detrimental, but I also believe that when objectivity distorts the real state of affairs and presents the reader with a misleading, or blatantly false perception, the situation is just as dire. Bias disguised as journalistic integrity is not doing journalists, or society at large, any favors.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM - GLOBALIZATION:GOOD OR EVIL?

Globalization – is it good, bad or just plain ugly?

The process of globalization presents a mass of contradictions, and many dichotomies. It can advance some nations, whilst putting others firmly behind. It can enhance countries, or exploit them. It can simultaneously make the world feel a lot smaller, yet still immensely large. At its very foundation, globalization is a double-edged sword, which can provide opportunities for some whilst offering little to others. I believe that while globalization offers many benefits, it is a very discriminatory process that benefits the West to a far greater degree than developing or Third World countries. However, in this day and age it is impossible to avoid this international interaction upon which globalization depends, and closing one’s nation off from such change and retreating into an ideology of anti-Western hatred, warmongering or anger is not the answer.

It is impossible to say that some countries benefit from globalization and that others simply don’t, as this is not the case. For example, whilst globalization has contribute to the spread of diseases such as AIDS, malaria and ‘mad cow’, it has also allowed areas affected to gain access to medicines and medical technologies that can aid in treating them. Similarly, whilst free trade agreements are often not entirely equal, often both countries involved gain access to cheaper imports that challenge the domestic markets to improve in efficiency, whilst gaining profits from their exports. It is a matter of degree in determining who are globalization’s biggest winners and losers. In the case of the environment, the developing world clearly suffers at the hands of the Western nations, which hypocritically demand that the developing nations should curb their levels of pollution, to avoid worsening the environmental issues that Western industrialization created. As for the dissemination of cultural ideals, the developing world appears to have been exposed to aspects of Western culture and capitalism to a far greater degree, with ‘McDonaldization’ and the spread of Western (mainly American) media clearly evident. The spread of different cultural ideas can increase understanding of other societies and of one’s own. However, attempts by some nations (for example, some Islamic states) to preserve their cultures can lead to anti-Western sentiment and resentment, which can in turn develop into hatred and violence. Such behaviour, whilst being an attempt to resist Western imperialism, does not in my opinion provide an effective means of cultural preservation, but rather brings out the worst aspects of a society and makes them ignore the potential benefits that they could gain from such foreign interaction.

However, the fact remains that globalization as a process benefits those nations that are already in a position of power, such as those in the West, to the greatest degree. Citizens in poorer nations do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to embracing or rejecting foreign expansion; a low-paying job in a Western-owned factory is often better than no job at all. Similarly, it is often easier for people of all nations to buy the cheaper alternative, be it clothing, food, electronics etc., than to support domestically made products or industries. Thus, globalization is often a necessary evil in order to make people’s lives easier, despite the detrimental effects they may have on other cultures or one’s own.
Globalization is not ultimately good or evil. It effects different nations in different ways, some to their benefit, whilst others to their detriment. Globalization is an unavoidable concept in our modern age, and countries need to embrace its advantages to offset its inevitable flaws.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KAPLAN AND ZAKARIA

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KAPLAN AND ZAKARIA
Which scenario is more likely? Is there such a thing as a ‘pure’ or ‘ideal’ democracy?

In his thesis, Kaplan paints a very morbid picture of our future - a future where disease and overpopulation will be rife, where cultures will clash in a world of eroding borders and increasing racial polarity and political upheaval, all aggravated by environmental scarcity. In contrast, Zakaria’s hypothesis is that there will be increasingly more dangerous illiberal democracies throughout the world, and that western liberal democracy may not be the ultimate end point, but merely one of many possible methods of governance. Although Kaplan’s thesis appears incredibly dire, I believe that it may be more visible as it occurs, whereas Zakaria’s ideal could occur subtly with less outside intervention to delay its evolution. Thus, whilst I acknowledge that Kaplan’s dystopia could occur, at least in some regards, in the West, it would not happen in the near future. The countries of the West possess the knowledge, financial ability and democratic institutions to at least slow down the rate of environmental degradation, overcrowding and political unrest that Western Africa did not. However, as demonstrated by Kaplan, many areas of the world, including the US, suffer from problems between different racial, cultural and religious groups, which could fan the flames of discontent that Kaplan predicted.

Zakaria claims that many countries are increasingly becoming illiberal democracies. Although this concept of illiberalism is akin to ‘democracy gone wrong’, I do not believe that all illiberal democracies are necessarily paving a path towards a dysfunctional future. As demonstrated by Zakaria, countries such as England, Sweden and France can all be considered illiberal democracies. The United States could also be considered slightly illiberal, with government intervention and prohibition on trade preventing a truly open marketplace from flourishing. Thus, it is all a question of degree as to whether or not a government’s illiberal aspects will provide a problem to the concept of democracy at large. If, as Zakaria suggests, the underlying fundamental pillars of constitutional democracy, such as the rule of law, are promoted, then the spread of illiberalism in its different shapes and forms would not pose such a dire threat.

THE AGENDA-SETTING ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA – Maxwell McCombs

ISSUES AND THE NEWS

THE AGENDA-SETTING ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA – Maxwell McCombs

“ Newspapers and TV news, even the tightly edited pages of a tabloid newspaper or Internet website, do considerably more than signal the existence of major events and issues.”

“Throughout their day-by-day selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence our perceptions on what are the most important issues of the day. Their ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda has come to be called the agenda setting role of the media.”

I believe that the arguments put forth by McCombs are valid, and that the media does influence what we, the public, believe to be important issues in society. For a large proportion of the population, this is a largely subconscious process, caused by the constant infiltration into the public consciousness of issues that may be of little relevance to their lives. This could explain why mundane issues which receive little media coverage like interest rates, which may be of great importance to the day-to-day running of a household, are held by some to be of less importance than issues that receive greater media attention but are of less relevance, such as the ‘war on terror’. Despite the chances of getting hit by a car being far greater than being the victim of a terrorist attack, the attention that the mainstream media has devoted to covering terrorism related news stories has, especially to those who believe news providers unquestioningly, increased its importance in the minds of many Americans. McCombs states the public has a certain degree of autonomy in determining whether news is actually important, as the media will only “set the agenda where the citizens perceive the news stories as relevant”, or where the public is in need of “orientation”. Whilst these points are justified, for the vast proportion of the public this is an unconscious process that is given no degree of considered or deliberate thought. As journalism scholars, we maintain to be subjective viewers of the news, who understand that the media may be promoting certain issues according to different agendas. However, it would be naïve of us to believe that everyone in society reads news in such a manner. The reality is that many people do not question, attempt or even care to make accountable the providers of our mainstream media. This is not, however, a result of the stupidity of a vast proportion of the viewing public. Rather, it results from, for better or worse, placing faith and trust in the journalists who are providing them with a window to what is going on in their worlds. Thus, it is the responsibility of the news providers, understanding the power and influence that they have, to use such influence ethically and responsibly.

THE STATE OF THE NEWS MEDIA- Project for Excellence in Journalism

ISSUES AND THE NEWS

THE STATE OF THE NEWS MEDIA- Project for Excellence in Journalism

The report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism on ‘The State of the News Media’ demonstrated that issues that were of lesser news value (i.e. slowly evolving ‘bread and butter’ topics of relevance to our day-to-day lives rather than dramatic ‘breaking news stories) were covered to a much lesser extent than one would have expected the pubic agenda to demand. Although it is disappointing that such ‘percolating’ stories were not given as much attention as their attention-grabbing, one-time-only counterparts (i.e. such as natural disasters), I believe that the wide range of media that is available and the many levels therein (i.e. local, national, etc) would enable the public to gain information on any topic which they so choose, should they want to devote the time to doing so. Although not all information, important as it is to our daily existence, is not directly at our fingertips, the fact remains that inadequate resources, time and space restraints and public disinterest largely influence what news will be covered and by whom, and such important yet banal news cannot always be covered by the mainstream media. The Project reflected the reality of the news media, which we as the public, whilst we may not appreciate it, must be forced to accept. However, the vast amount of local, national and international news sources, blogs, niche publications, Internet sources and alternative media make finding information increasingly possible, even if such information does not spark the interest of all or any American news sources.

"The End of History?" Francis Fukuyama

Is this "The End"? 

In his thesis "The End of History", Francis Fukuyama contends that the end of the Cold War signified the end of humankind's political ideological progression, and the arrival of Western liberal democracies as the last and ultimate form of human government. Whilst Fukuyama maintains that the 'end of history' doesn't necessarily entail the end of 'events' or challenges to liberal governance, he claims that the Western liberal democracy will be increasingly prevalent and and the best political alternative amongst countries of the world. Fukuyama published his thesis in 1989, at a time of great political upheaval and societal change, so have his premonitions come true? Did we in fact reach the 'end of history' as we knew it? 

Almost 20 years after Fukuyama published his premonitions, the world is a remarkably different place. Whilst some threats to democracy such as communism have declined markedly, for example in the rapidly industrializing and increasingly capitalistic China, others such as Islamic fundamentalism and theocratic states have flourished. However, as Fukuyama points out, the alternative of an Islamic theocracy as a form of governance does not hold wide appeal to those outside of the Muslim faith, which weakens its chances as a global form of governance. Fukuyama maintains that democracies are more successful due to the reduced amount of conflicts they encounter, thus other political systems that could have challenged liberalism, such as fascism, failed as they promoted conflict, rather than avoided it. 

Whilst I agree that there does not seem to be an alternative form of government at this moment in history that will ever prove to be as widely utilized and acknowledged as successful as that of the liberal democracy, I could not state with as much certainty as Fukuyama that there would never again be another form of government that would challenge it. Certainly, before and during the Cold War, other forms of government such as communism appeared to be viable political alternatives, to the extent that democratic nations such as the US were anxious about their expansion worldwide. I believe that Fukuyama does promote democracies as an almost unbeatable form of government, against which many other forms fail in comparison. However, for him to state in 1989 that history would merely end with such a consensus and never again become challenged is short sighted at best. Islamic theocracies promote enough worry from democratic nations for us as citizens to seriously believe that they do not promote a challenge to existing ideologies, including that of government. 

Although Fukuyama makes a point of saying that he does not believe that 'events' will cease to occur in the future, he maintains that they will be transitory, rather than permanent, threats to the dominance of democratic governance. However, he does not give time frames for such temporary threats, which could last for many years. It could be considered then, that such a period of time is not a transitory event, but the creation of a new era in a constantly evolving and changing history. 

Whilst Fukuyama sells democracies as an effective and preferable form of governance, he cannot determine the infinite political history of all humankind. Before the Cold War, many alternative forms of government were offered, many of which were considered to be the best method, as Fukuyama believes of democracies. Who knows how or what people will think twenty, one hundred or a thousand years from now? To simply state that political evolution has reached its mortal end is to reject the evolution that it has and will continue to experience, and reduce any challenges to the political schema as simple blips on the larger, predetermined historical radar.