In the first reading All the News that Fits, Donna Woolfolk Cross provides the reader with examples of various news anchor jargon used to distract the viewer from real information. For example:
"John- Thanks, Tom. Gee, that's too bad about Fall River. But at least we're having wonderful weather here, eh?
Tom- Oh, you bet. (Cheerily) Its been just beautiful. We're planning on going out to the lake to take the kids sailing this weekend.
John- Great idea. Nothing like being near the water in springtime, I always say. Well, Tom, here's a late breaking story about the drowning death of a twenty-eight-year-old Springfield housewife..."
Cross states that "the job of TV news is to distract us from disquieting thoughts while preserving the excitement provided by an illusion of danger and fear." Cross also states that the faces of television newswomen are never wrinkled." And she's correct, every woman in the news today look young and sexy to distract the viewer.
Here is a video example of an attractive news woman whom to be honest, distracts me with her great looks.
In the second reading With These Words I Can Sell You Anything, William Lutz states that advertisements don't have to be entirely truthful. "puffing," is an exaggeration about the product that is so obvious just about everyone is capable of recognizing the claim as an exaggeration. Lutz gives examples of puffing words such as: "exciting," "glamorous," "lavish," and "perfect." however when an advertising claim can be scientifically tested or analyzed, it is no longer "puffing." Lutz also states that "new" and "improved" are used a lot in advertising.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Net Neutrality
There are some questions floating around about the issue of Net Neutrality and some are: What is Net Neutrality? What is at stake if we lose Net Neutrality? and Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the fundamental principle that preserves the free and open Internet. This means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
I found a great video on Free Press on the subject and in the video it states that "the deal is that the companies that provide telephone and cable are not allowed to access the 'pipes' that connect us to the internet. Everyone gets the same speed and quality." It also states that the big telephone and cable providers want to set up a "restricted fast lane" BUT only for their partners and services. Websites would have to pay a hefty fee to use the network, this ultimately make those companies "gatekeepers." Unfortunately for them the over 1 million Americans have petitioned congress to protect our Internet's level playing field.
I found another video on YouTube that showed Obama on the subject of Net Neutrality. This shows that the Democrat party is for it. In his Net Neutrality statement, President Obama argues that the smaller voices get squeezed out if some websites were to be accessed more than others.
I then found an article from fiercewireless.com. In this article, Phil Goldstein states that the Republicans in the House of Representatives continue to push to block the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. This proves that Republicans are fighting against what the American people are fighting for. As
President Obama said, "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history and we have to keep it that way." FreePress Source:
Video of President Obama's stance on Net Neutrality:
FierceWireless article:
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Reflection on the New York Times Article: "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"
In the political cartoon drawn by Josh Hagler to the left, it shows how the Pentagon operated in the summer of 2005 to convince the American people to go Pro-Iraq War. The Pentagon hid behind and puppeteer their military analyst puppets to get the message out.In the New York Times article “Behind TV Analysts Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” by investigative reporter David Barstow argues how military analysts are puppets to the pentagon. These military analysts are ventriloquist dolls who are being told what to say in order to gain the support of the people. These analyst “puppets” are motivated by loyalty and money. In a CNN report on this matter in Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room, He talks to Howard Kurtz about the issue. In further investigation, it was found that some former officers had meetings with Donald Rumsfeld and sought out how they could influence on the subject of the Iraq war. For example, former officer John Garrett wrote to the pentagon “please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay.” However I personally agree with the critics in that the pentagon was “lying” us into the war in Iraq. The video I found on this issue can be found at the bottom of this blog. It provides very interesting information on the topic.
In an article that I found from The Huffington Post
written by Gareth Porter, he states “not only did the ‘military analysts’ routinely violate basic ethical standards of journalism by accepting trips completely arranged and paid for the administration; they were consciously participating in its strategy to manipulate public opinion by regurgitating the pro-war arguments they were given in top-level official briefings -- which they had to promise to keep secret.” Porter also argues that “the networks should be forced to fire every ‘military analyst’ who has been recruited, accepted all-expenses-paid trips to Iraq, uncritically mouthed the administration talking points while concealing their special relationship or maintained vested financial interests in Pentagon contracts through business relationships with contractors. I completely agree with Porter, to find out that the Pentagon hides behind hired military analysts and tell them what to tell us and lie to the American people to try and win their support is ludicrous.
I found another video on the topic that also provides information about the New York Times and how it “unmasked” the Pentagon. It states how the Pentagon used the analysts as “Media Trojan Horse,” in order to convince Americans to go pro-war. This video can also be found at the bottom of this page. I chose these sources because they support my point in that the use of the media to gain public opinion is wrong. They lied to the people and convinced them to support a war for reasons that that didn't make sense and later proved to be false.
CNN Video with Wolf Blitzer:
2nd Video:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)