Stereotyping is found everywhere and it cannot be avoided. The media has come a long way with stereotyping but it is still found in many programs today.
Female stereotyping was very strong in the 50’s. Women were portrayed as stay at home wives that did the cooking, laundry, and pleased their husbands. I Love Lucy portrayed an image of a silly, trouble-prone wife which was the exact opposite of what Lucille Ball really was. She was a very independent woman and received many awards and honors throughout her life. Women in the 50’s were more independent and self-sufficient which soon became the new stereotype in the 70’s and 80’s. Shows such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Roseanne portrayed women who were assertive and independent.
Ethnical stereotypes are very strong in the media and actually cause some despair within ethnic groups in America. After The Sopranos went on air, Italian Americans were upset because many Americans associated Italians with the Mafia. Racial stereotyping has been even worse. The media usually depicts African American characters such as prostitutes, pimps, killers, and drug dealers. The media has come a long way though by introducing shows such as The Bernie Mac Show and My Wife and Kids that stops the negative stereotyping of African Americans.
While reading this chapter, the media has put negative stereotyping on women, ethnic and racial minorities, elderly people, and even people with disabilities and mental illness. The media has gotten better throughout the years, but there will always be stereotyping and it cannot be avoided. Shows such as the O.C. depicted characters that lived extravagant lifestyles which is not the true case with real people that live in Orange County. Shows like the O.C., Rosanne, I Love Lucy, The Sopranos, and many more create stereotypes in order to have high ratings and good programming. As long as people watch these shows, stereotyping will continue to exist and it can never be truly avoided.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Media Coverage
One thing that I felt was really important in Chapter 11 was media coverage. The media is trying to cover all segments of society whether if it deals with race or lifestyles such as being homosexual. I think that the media is moving in the right direction by covering all aspects of society. The New York Times is now publishing same-sex marriage announcements. A lot of the readers were angry about this but I think that the Times is doing the right thing. How is it fair if all other marriage announcements are being published, but not homosexual marriages? I really liked the quote on p. 387 that said “Journalists have a simple duty to cover all segments of society fairly and accurately and to make informed distinctions.” I definitely agree with this quote because everyone should be treated fairly and the media has an obligation to carry out that rule when covering stories.
There are a limited number of African Americans and Hispanics represented in the media; however, the entertainment industry has been trying to improve that. There has been a small number of African American characters starring in T.V. sitcoms because of the lack in interest of white audiences. But shows such as The Bernie Mac Show and My Wife and Kids have appealed to white audiences as well as African American audiences. Journalists are trying to improve their coverage of African Americans as well, but it sometimes is stereotypical. There was a survey in Chapter 11 that examined the coverage of African Americans in newspapers and found that half of the people were either sports figures or entertainers. The study suggested that African Americans are only “curiosities or sources of amusement” (p. 387). Journalists definitely need to step up and include more minorities in their stories and keep it as fair and accurate as possible.
There are a limited number of African Americans and Hispanics represented in the media; however, the entertainment industry has been trying to improve that. There has been a small number of African American characters starring in T.V. sitcoms because of the lack in interest of white audiences. But shows such as The Bernie Mac Show and My Wife and Kids have appealed to white audiences as well as African American audiences. Journalists are trying to improve their coverage of African Americans as well, but it sometimes is stereotypical. There was a survey in Chapter 11 that examined the coverage of African Americans in newspapers and found that half of the people were either sports figures or entertainers. The study suggested that African Americans are only “curiosities or sources of amusement” (p. 387). Journalists definitely need to step up and include more minorities in their stories and keep it as fair and accurate as possible.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Morally Offensive Content
One thing that stuck out in Chapter 10 which reminded me of our discussion last week was “Sex Sells.” In the world of media, that is definitely true. Just last week we were talking about the Hardees commercial with Paris Hilton. It was a very sexy commercial with Paris Hilton washing a car in a bikini as she was eating a Hardees burger. The commercial had absolutely nothing to do with the product but I’m sure that Hardees still got a lot of attention because of the controversial images. I think that the commercial pushes the boundaries of ethical standards and that is one of the reasons which made it so popular. Even though there was no pornography, I think that it shouldn’t be viewed by a younger audience. In order to make the commercial more ethical, it should only be aired late at night so that it is not viewed by younger children.
Another thing that stuck out in the chapter was deciding whether or not to show shocking and disturbing visuals. This reminded of the video we saw in class of the little boy about to be hit by a police car. Some stations decided to air the video while others didn’t. That is a very hard ethical decision to make because you want to show the audience what happened while also having respect for the victim’s family. Even though you did not actually see him get hit, the video was definitely disturbing. In order to make an ethical decision like that, you need to understand all sides of the issues and trust your moral instincts. I personally would not show the video mainly because it was very shocking to me when I first saw it. If it was shocking to me, I know that it would be a million times worse if it was seen by the victim’s family.
Another thing that stuck out in the chapter was deciding whether or not to show shocking and disturbing visuals. This reminded of the video we saw in class of the little boy about to be hit by a police car. Some stations decided to air the video while others didn’t. That is a very hard ethical decision to make because you want to show the audience what happened while also having respect for the victim’s family. Even though you did not actually see him get hit, the video was definitely disturbing. In order to make an ethical decision like that, you need to understand all sides of the issues and trust your moral instincts. I personally would not show the video mainly because it was very shocking to me when I first saw it. If it was shocking to me, I know that it would be a million times worse if it was seen by the victim’s family.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
All the President's Men
All the President’s Men was a very powerful movie that really dug deep into the Watergate scandal which led to Nixon’s resignation. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford played the role of two reporters working for the Washington Post. They were investigating the Watergate break-in and made some surprising discoveries. However, in order to make these discoveries and write their story, they had to make a lot of ethical judgments. Many things they did throughout the movie were very sketchy and unethical. But did the end justify the means?
The reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did some sketchy activities in order to get the truth. One thing that is against the code of ethics is using unknown sources. They used many anonymous sources throughout their investigation including a source named “Deep Throat.” Reporter Bob Woodward would meet “Deep Throat” in dark parking garages which made the information seem even more sketchy, but that doesn’t mean that the information wasn’t true. In many cases though, it was important to keep these sources confidential because they were dealing with a huge national issue and the sources could be in danger if their names got out. But how are readers supposed to trust any of the stories if the sources were not named? The reporters had to deal with this and find other ways to get information from credible sources whose names they could reveal. The ways they went about finding people who were involved dealt with ethical dilemmas as well. The reporters were able to get a list of names and addresses of people that were involved by using one of their coworkers who was guilt tripped into doing it. Once they got the list, they tried to track everyone down. When the people wouldn’t talk to them or let them in, the reporters became very intrusive and sort of tricked the people into talking. Reporter Carl Bernstein came into a woman’s home and tried to get information from her by tricking her into questions. He was also very sneaky too by writing on napkins to remember all the information. He wrote down things she said without her even knowing about it. Now this kind of intrusiveness seems very unethical but it was the only way to get information because every witness was too scared to talk.
The reporters managed to get more information from one of the sources by tricking her again in order to learn someone’s name and verify what they knew. They wanted to know if P stood for the name Porter. They knew that she wouldn’t verify that information so they pretended that they already knew it and said it in front of her to see if she would correct them or deny it. When she didn’t deny the information, they knew that it was correct. They tricked her into verifying their information.
The reporters did many unethical activities in order to learn the truth. Is it wrong that they deceived people into getting information even though it was for the greater good? I definitely think that the end justified the means and the only way to find out the truth was to do sketchy activities. I do not think that it is right to deceive people but sometimes that it what you have to do in order to get the truth. The truth affected the entire nation and the American people deserved to know what happened with the Watergate scandal. People deserve to know the truth so the ends do justify the means.
The reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did some sketchy activities in order to get the truth. One thing that is against the code of ethics is using unknown sources. They used many anonymous sources throughout their investigation including a source named “Deep Throat.” Reporter Bob Woodward would meet “Deep Throat” in dark parking garages which made the information seem even more sketchy, but that doesn’t mean that the information wasn’t true. In many cases though, it was important to keep these sources confidential because they were dealing with a huge national issue and the sources could be in danger if their names got out. But how are readers supposed to trust any of the stories if the sources were not named? The reporters had to deal with this and find other ways to get information from credible sources whose names they could reveal. The ways they went about finding people who were involved dealt with ethical dilemmas as well. The reporters were able to get a list of names and addresses of people that were involved by using one of their coworkers who was guilt tripped into doing it. Once they got the list, they tried to track everyone down. When the people wouldn’t talk to them or let them in, the reporters became very intrusive and sort of tricked the people into talking. Reporter Carl Bernstein came into a woman’s home and tried to get information from her by tricking her into questions. He was also very sneaky too by writing on napkins to remember all the information. He wrote down things she said without her even knowing about it. Now this kind of intrusiveness seems very unethical but it was the only way to get information because every witness was too scared to talk.
The reporters managed to get more information from one of the sources by tricking her again in order to learn someone’s name and verify what they knew. They wanted to know if P stood for the name Porter. They knew that she wouldn’t verify that information so they pretended that they already knew it and said it in front of her to see if she would correct them or deny it. When she didn’t deny the information, they knew that it was correct. They tricked her into verifying their information.
The reporters did many unethical activities in order to learn the truth. Is it wrong that they deceived people into getting information even though it was for the greater good? I definitely think that the end justified the means and the only way to find out the truth was to do sketchy activities. I do not think that it is right to deceive people but sometimes that it what you have to do in order to get the truth. The truth affected the entire nation and the American people deserved to know what happened with the Watergate scandal. People deserve to know the truth so the ends do justify the means.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Product Placements and Internet Advertisments
One thing that I never really thought of was product placement and why it is considered an ethical issue. I really do not think that audiences are manipulated by the advertisements. One movie that really uses a lot of product placement is Back to the Future. It showed the Pepsi product over and over along with many other products. It had no effect on me whatsoever. It did not make me want to buy Pepsi. I think that product placement in movies actually makes the movie seem more realistic because they use products that real people use every day.
Another concern is that product placement takes away from the film’s narrative. I think that in some instances, this might be true but overall I think that it adds to the movie. In Talladega Nights, they strongly stressed each product and it definitely added to the movie because the products were shown in a way to make the movie funnier. It was a great advertisement for the product and it did not take anything away from the movie.
Although product placement in movies doesn’t bother me, I hate internet advertisements. The internet definitely bombards you with advertisements on every Web page. Cyberspace advertisements really bother me especially the ones that flash and pop up saying that you’re the 999,999 viewer and you win a free T.V. They are very intrusive. One thing that we discussed in class was the advertisements on Facebook. I think that it is very creepy that the advertisements are designed to my interests. I see advertisements about my school and about Greek items that I can buy. I don’t understand how they got that information about me. It also showed an advertisement for my sorority once and I have no idea how Facebook knew what sorority I was in since I don’t mention it in my profile.
Another concern is that product placement takes away from the film’s narrative. I think that in some instances, this might be true but overall I think that it adds to the movie. In Talladega Nights, they strongly stressed each product and it definitely added to the movie because the products were shown in a way to make the movie funnier. It was a great advertisement for the product and it did not take anything away from the movie.
Although product placement in movies doesn’t bother me, I hate internet advertisements. The internet definitely bombards you with advertisements on every Web page. Cyberspace advertisements really bother me especially the ones that flash and pop up saying that you’re the 999,999 viewer and you win a free T.V. They are very intrusive. One thing that we discussed in class was the advertisements on Facebook. I think that it is very creepy that the advertisements are designed to my interests. I see advertisements about my school and about Greek items that I can buy. I don’t understand how they got that information about me. It also showed an advertisement for my sorority once and I have no idea how Facebook knew what sorority I was in since I don’t mention it in my profile.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest arise in the media all the time and it is important to understand them in order to make ethical decisions. Conflicts of interest deal with conflicting relationships, conflicting public participation, and vested interests and hidden agendas (p.213). As journalists, you should not incorporate your personal life with work. If I were a journalist and I wanted to do a story about sororities and greek life, it would be unethical if I talked about my own experiences and only interviewed girls from my sorority. To be completely fair, I should interview girls from all the other chapters and not my own. But it would be best if I didn’t even do the story at all and someone else who wasn’t greek should cover it. My mom has to deal with conflicts of interest every day since she works for the government. For example, we cannot have any kind of political signs in our yard because she is not allowed to display her political views. All jobs deal with conflicts of interest especially public relations. The book had a good example of conflicting interests if a public relations firm represented an oil company and an environmental group. That just wouldn’t be ethical.
One major conflict of interest is checkbook journalism. Usually it can be unethical, but sometimes it is necessary to get your story. I have never really agreed with paying a source, but when dealing with media competition, it is sometimes necessary. Many major news sources have used checkbook journalism including the New York Times. The Times paid $1,000 in 1912 for an interview with the wireless operator of the Titanic. I believe that if journalists need to use checkbook journalism to get a great story, they should inform the public that they paid their source. That way the public can decide if the information is accurate or not. It would be very unethical if the public was not aware of checkbook journalism and the source would lose a lot of their credibility. An incident of checkbook journalism was used by ABC after the Columbine shootings. ABC paid $16,000 to a friend of one of the gunman in order to obtain home videos and other details about the shooters. Even if checkbook journalism was the only way to get that information, ABC should have told the public that the information was paid for. I think that it is deceiving to not let the public know where the information came from and that a price was paid in order to get it. Situations like that can really damage the credibility of a network like ABC.
One major conflict of interest is checkbook journalism. Usually it can be unethical, but sometimes it is necessary to get your story. I have never really agreed with paying a source, but when dealing with media competition, it is sometimes necessary. Many major news sources have used checkbook journalism including the New York Times. The Times paid $1,000 in 1912 for an interview with the wireless operator of the Titanic. I believe that if journalists need to use checkbook journalism to get a great story, they should inform the public that they paid their source. That way the public can decide if the information is accurate or not. It would be very unethical if the public was not aware of checkbook journalism and the source would lose a lot of their credibility. An incident of checkbook journalism was used by ABC after the Columbine shootings. ABC paid $16,000 to a friend of one of the gunman in order to obtain home videos and other details about the shooters. Even if checkbook journalism was the only way to get that information, ABC should have told the public that the information was paid for. I think that it is deceiving to not let the public know where the information came from and that a price was paid in order to get it. Situations like that can really damage the credibility of a network like ABC.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Ch. 6 Confidentiality
Confidentiality in journalism can raise up a lot of issues. Journalists have a duty to keep their sources private if they wish, but what if that information is valuable to the public. Shouldn’t the public have a right to know where certain information is coming from? I feel that the public should have a right to know who sources are, but I also feel that sources should have the right to privacy if they are giving up valuable information which could be dangerous for them if they were revealed. I can understand both sides of the issue, but I don’t have an answer as to which would be the right choice. Reveal the source or not?
Justice Robert Stewart had a good idea about regarding confidential sources which I agree with. His three criteria were: 1) the information is “clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law.” 2) Information cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values. 3) There is a compelling and overriding need for the information (p.185). I think that a source should only be revealed if the information meets all three of these criteria. I would still like to know who the sources are for all stories, but I understand that a source has the right to stay private. Their privacy should not be violated unless it meets Stewart’s requirements. Even though all situations can vary, journalists should respect their sources and keep their confidentiality. When the information is of public concern and adheres to Stewart’s rules, then that should be the only time when a source should be revealed.
Justice Robert Stewart had a good idea about regarding confidential sources which I agree with. His three criteria were: 1) the information is “clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law.” 2) Information cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values. 3) There is a compelling and overriding need for the information (p.185). I think that a source should only be revealed if the information meets all three of these criteria. I would still like to know who the sources are for all stories, but I understand that a source has the right to stay private. Their privacy should not be violated unless it meets Stewart’s requirements. Even though all situations can vary, journalists should respect their sources and keep their confidentiality. When the information is of public concern and adheres to Stewart’s rules, then that should be the only time when a source should be revealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
