Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Sensational Journalism: Don’t Trust Everything You See, or Read


Image result for sensational journalism
            Just like that kid that always had to outdo you in the third grade; often journalists like to stretch the truth about certain stories. However it is not their intention to be cooler than you, but instead to manipulate you. Not in a sense that they want to control what you do, but what you watch and see. Journalists often work for businesses, and the number one goal of a business is to make money. Any respectable and professional journalist will follow the set of ethics to promote reliable and credible news to the public, however to some the money becomes more important than the truth. To obtain more viewers and better ratings, which leads to more money, journals will unfortunately go to certain lengths to stretch the news. Recently, long time news anchor and journalist Brian Williams was indefinitely suspended from NBC. Williams did not falsify events that happened, but often made up stories about his own experiences. For example, during a riot in Egypt that he was reporting on site for, he stated that he looked rioters straight in the eyes, when in fact he had been watching from his hotel room. This is a breech of pathos. The emotional and sympathetic response a people will give when they hear a story of another person in danger is enough to intrigue a person so much that they would watch this story, and most likely come back to this news source. Brain Williams was also a well known journalist and on prime time for NBC, which is part of Comcast Corporation the biggest media company in America.

            Sensationalism is something that will always be present in journalism. Jim Neustadt, Director of Communications at Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and former Special Products Producer at NBC4 says that journalism is something that, “will always be prevalent,” based on the desire to be first. Competition in media is very extreme, in terms of fame and money, it is difficult to get the top rankings and build media corporations into well-known, successful outlets of information for the public. 


Sensationalism in Media Started Through Yellow Journalism
Sensational media relates to the long history of yellow journalism. Early muddruckers investigated parts of society, such as meat factories, and found groundbreaking problems. They found just how disgusting meat factories were, this was from the book, the Jungle, written by Upton Sinclair in 1906. Before that in 1887, Nellie Bly investigated insane asylums in New York City and discovered the mistreatment of women with perceived mental illnesses.

            These discoveries were very startling for the project. People couldn’t believe how secretive certain parts of life were and how harmful they could be. Yellow journalism helped bring to light many stories that had been previously unknown in dramatic ways. However, eventually certain journalists began to use the sensationalism without the factual evidence used by Sinclair and Bly. Instead of focusing on the truths that were so riveting in these investigations, certain journalist began to report what would be the most sensational and interesting to get more viewers. The facts and morals of journalism became less significant at times. Neustadt says during his time at NBC4, often there was a need for, "merchandising," that leads new journalists to stretch facts to create better stories.


 
How Small Sensational Stories Can Be Harmful
Returning to Brian Williams unfortunate situation brings up one of the oldest sayings in journalism “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.” In a minor example of how facts can be distorted to support a story, the exaggerated article about the Department of Justice spending 16 dollars on muffins for its members. This story criticized the government’s spending tendencies at described it as a, “waste during a time when everyone is pinching pennies.” However, Sam Stein of the Huffington Post went further into investigation about the story and researched the 16$ included a number of items far exceeding just the muffins. The 16 dollars was the number spent during a conference that included the cost of not only muffins but, fruit, other baked goods, coffee, tea, soft drinks, tax, and tips. Although the amount of money spent on muffins or other foods may not seem to be an important story, it is a harsh criticism of the government and could be taken as political writing. By criticizing incumbent members of the government, media could possibly be attempting to disgrace government workings and create change through their own views, regardless of the facts. Of all the articles written about this story, 178 were critical of the government spending, while only 37 tried to correctly explain the situation, and eight refrained of explaining whether it was a valid or false claim.

According to a study by the fact checking source Pundifact, of the three companies FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, each had large amounts of using untrue facts. The study says that of the FOx news is truthful just 18 percent of the time. MSNBC tells the truth 31 percent of the time, and CNN is 60 percent truthful. This is not an exact study, as not every fact produced by each source can be checked, but it displays that evidence is often stretched by three of the United States' largest media outlets.

Percentage of True Facts used by FOX, MSNBC, and CNN
 
 Baltimore Riots and the Modernity of Sensationalism 
Sensational journalism plays a large part in current events and social issues. One of the most recent events to receive a large amount of media coverage was the Baltimore riot. This coverage is very difficult to cover because the origin of the riots was from alleged police brutality when a young African American man was arrested, and then severely injured by police who refused to take him to a hospital leading to his death. To correctly convey the entire story to public, factual evidence has to be known, and reviewed by the media sources. At the initial time of the riots, this was difficult to do because the police had not given their full report on the young man, Freddie Gray, being hurt. The reporters must instead focus on the events surrounding the main story, which can distort news. There is nothing wrong with reporting about the riots as they are a major part of the story, and have major relevance to the public as it can affect public safety and any protest can be taken as a message that current societal practices are not working. Even if the practice is not accepted by everyone, and is dangerous, it is certainly newsworthy. The only question is whether that news is being correctly covered. In a media clip by Wolf Blitzer, he interviewed a community activist that admitted to promoting non-violent protest, however the interviewee, Deray Mckesson, went on to add that he supports the rioters and that change is needed. Blitzer’s questions were clearly marked against the violence and provided stats only supporting that claim. He left out the reasons for the violent, did not mention Freddie Gay or police brutality and determined police were more victimized in general.  Blitzer never suggests that’s McKesson says he accepts violence or condones it, but continues to ask him on how protests should be conducted without accepting the statistics brought forward by McKesson. Blitzer cites well-known people who have spoken against violence, Obama for this particular incident and then he also refers to Martin Luther King Jr. as a past example for peaceful protest.
 
Blitzer’s video can be seen as taking lurid information and focusing on one side. This is unfortunate for a major news source. However, many newscasts have aired fair points about the Baltimore riots. Jim Neustadt believes that reporting has been just towards the entirety of the article and reports that the media has focused on the riots and the untimely death of Freddie Gray. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow interviewed Nick Mosby, Baltimore City Council Member, who does not, "condone " the violence, but both Maddow and Mosby acknowledge the wrongness of violence, as well as the the reasons behind the rioting. They acknowledge that,"communication is imbalanced and is not intellectual.. and plague urban America." This is a much more just analysis of the situation, as the focus is not only on the fault of the rioters, but on the factors that lead to the rioting as well.



 

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Governing the Media: How the Government Deserves More Power in Regards to Protecting THe United States' National Security









(Number 1)

 Governing the Media: How the Government Deserves More Power in Regards to Protecting The United States' National Security 

The government in the United States has a responsibility to its citizens to protect their best interest and safety. In today's world safety no longer means just fighting wars physically with guns and blood, nor does it mean giant arms races, these are parts of national security, but the newest obligation of the the government is to defend its people from the possible harms of the social networking and public broadcasting.
Social Media Requires Lots of Private Information that Can be Seen by Harmful Sources
Social Networks are extremely useful results of the digital world. People can share photos from each others trips, talk to old friends, find new friends, make plans, find jobs, and make all sorts of productive connections for one's self and their community. However, each site takes a lot of information from anyone who signs up. Not necessarily social security numbers or bank codes, but email accounts, phone numbers, location, addresses, and many other extremely private details. By allowing the governments interference. It is the public's best interest to allow the government to keep an eye on who is seeing all this information and blocking anything that may. 
Anything that is put out to the public, whether it be on TV, radio, the Internet, or Social media can be seen by millions of people. It is necessary to remember that any crude or potentially dangerous information needs to be correctly monitored by the government. The same way the government would patrol for a potential invasion, they need to have the ability to prevent potential cyber attacks or be able to find information that could help them stop other attacks.
https://ntxheeyees.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screen-shot-2012-01-20-at-5-28-02-am.png
Social Media is a Method of Threatening National Security
Media is a way of spreading information and news, but as well as allowing people to connect and be productive, it can lead people to connect and do harm. For example, there are terrorist sites that actively recruit new members via the Internet. In the case of the Boson Bombing in 2013, the two young men who set off the bombs were seduced by the extremist methods they had seen online. Had the government been able to stop this sites or sites like it, then terrorists would not have been able to recruit these two, and the bombings would have not have happened, at least internally.
Image result for anti-terrorismFeatured photo - What’s Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name?
In Europe, there has been a large push to remove terrorist organizations from using the internet. The French minister is currently working to block sites that are deemed a threat, and replace them with a picture of a red hand, like the one shown above. After bombings in Brussels and Paris the EU has began to consider banning websites at the cost of social liberties as well. To promote safety and keep these dangerous organizations from communicating, certain information must be prohibited.
Does Government Control Breech Freedom of Speech Laws?
In the United States, freedom of speech is regarded as one of the most important laws established by the bill of rights and is the quintessential aspect of democracy. However, not allowing certain information to be broadcasted or seen does limit freedom of speech. Yet, it is important to way the costs and benefits against each other. Certain information shown on the Internet is self-incriminating, the government could take off private information about people that they may not want to be seen. Also, some internet postings can be hurtful and unlawful, there are not many regulations regarding the Internet, but it is a part of American society, and just as there are laws in the non-digital world, there need to be regulations in the digital world.

Without Government Control, Anybody Could Endanger the United States
What is important to recall about social media, is that it allows for anybody to put any information they find on the Internet. This makes it accessible to over a billion people. Someone who works at a low level government job could potentially post a selfie of them self at work, and have some sort of access code on their card that could provide someone with information to breech the governments most private information. Allowing the government to override and block this post, would secure the safety of the people and stop the potential hacking of important codes or other information. Essentially a janitor at the White House could have numbers on their key card, which if by some lack of thought were to be posted on the Internet by them or just someone on a tour, it could leak vital information.
 Image result for net neutrality
Governments New Ability to "Micromanage"
 In February the FCC passed the Net Neutrality Act, which gives the government the ability to regulate what is produced on the Internet on any source, This was in accordance to a plan created by Obama that allows the government to interfere with any information they find to be harmful. This will allow them to provide more national security by eliminating harmful sites that could produce propaganda or illegal activity against the United States.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Sensational Media: How often does the media misportray information in news articles?

Subhead 1: Major news sources generally spend a lot of their time and resources over exaggerating points in stories that are irrelevant to current events or are invalid to the specific story.

Subhead 2: News stations often focus more on ratings and viewers than about finding the truth in a story.

The expert I will be interviewing is James Neustadt, Director of Communications and Community Relations at WSSC, and former member of Special Products Producer at NBC4. I have contacted him and plan on interviewing him next week. One question I will ask is," While at NBC4, did you ever see any distorted information for the sake of producing high ratings over valid information?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/media-sensationalism/

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Photos of Sensationalism











https://bolanvoice.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1393622_755713911111290_496936280_n.jpg     

           The Second picture is the most explanatory because it describes the relationship between the media and public. It's captions label what both people represent, and the picture itself reports what the idea of sensationalism is. By showing the homeless man, the viewer understands what issue is being addressed. The viewer can also see how the man labeled as media is distracting the other man labeled you. This shows that the media is not allowing, "you" or the public to see the actual issue. The people are instead subjected solely to what is reported by the media, and not by a what they can see.
         The first picture is sensationalism, but it only shows the caption and what the problem is. It does not actually show what is happening, just the reporting. It fails to explain how ebola is as bad as Al-qaeda, as well as comparing a disease to a terrorist organization to blow the story out of proportion. They use a very well known, disliked target to promote the interest of their own story. there is no link between the two. Even if it is just a metaphoric comparison, it is unjust to report to the public that a disease can be demonized the same way as terrorism.
         The third picture shows sensationalism because it shows a story that is meaningless. Britney Spears is a famous singer, but what she does with her hair is unimportant to most people, and to say her shaving her head is, "shear madness" is mislabeling. By saying something is madness, lots of attention is drawn because it threatens the stability of society. However, this exact article, does not threaten anyone, and is inappropriately used.