International Media- Should we care?

In class, one student made a comment that we should know everything that is going on abroad even if it doesn't affect us personally. Another student came back with his philosophy of not reading anything international unless it directly affects him or the United States. Neither one of these perspectives seem correct, there has to be a happy medium of paying attention to the global world, but not overdoing it by paying attention to every little detail. As I was reading Bob Stevensons' study, I really thought about his point on the true content of international news concentrating mostly on the negative, violent events because that's "what sells." His study proved only 1/3 of international coverage really focused on "coups and earthquakes," which seems very low when I first thought about it. Then, I began thinking about the days I have extra time on my hands and I get to read many more stories in the New York Times. I am able to thoroughly go through the international section instead of only focusing on the global stories that make the front page. It is true most of the front page International articles are related to mass bombings, devastating earthquakes or mudslides, or political corruption, but how often do we really look inside the NYT and read the stories that don't make the front? There are plenty of positive and interesting stories found on the inside of the International section. I don't think people avoid this part of global news because they don't care what's going on in other countries, I think a lot o the reason has to do with the extra time people have or even the time people are willing to put into reading the news, whether it's national or international. 

However, it is interesting to think about the big corporations dominating U.S. news with their agenda setting and bias reporting, also dominate international news with similar agenda setting and bias reporting. Now, we have to question the news we get in the U.S. by checking facts and comparing different news sources, but we also have to compare different sources internationally to what we are fed in the U.S. Domestically, we have a new medium of news to rely on to help us sift through bias "facts." Citizen journalists and bloggers are a great source to keep our journalists accountable and fair. But these sources found in the U.S. don't have the same resources as large conglomerate media sources who can send reporters and resources to cover countries abroad first hand. Since I have family in Israel, I am very interested in the country, and luckily this is a country that U.S. media devotes a large space to. But what if I had family in Norway, Yugoslavia, or a smaller country in Africa? I would have to go online and search for the country's own news, which probably isn't as thorough in the news because it may not have the same resources or money as the U.S. Broader coverage of the global world is definitely significant in the future of our country's media and if one doesn't want to pay attention to certain issues, but wants to focus on other ones, the media will provide different outlets to serve the various publics' needs and wants.

Jeff Cohen

Jeff Cohen's presentation in class definitely got me thinking about actually pursuing the Journalism career. However, I don't think it pushed me closer to the Journalism path. I am already thinking of working more in the politics and/or policy field, but since Journalism has been my original passion I can't let go of the idea all together, and my passion for writing is still strong. Something that bothered me was towards the end, after Jeff exposed corporate media for the underhandedness of the administration, forcing writers and staff to cover certain events and issues with a specific slant, he told us that it is not a problem taking a job with a corporation. We were told we will still learn a lot and it shouldn't stain our name in any way if we wanted to move over to Independent Media at any point in our career. I have a hard time believing this. Jeff made it seem as if most of what we'd learn in corporate media is how to follow directions on creating a certain bias in our writing and the whole process of taking orders from men such as Rupert Murdoch does not sound appealing. If I was planning on continuing in Journalism, I would want to begin in Independent Media where the Journalists aren't corrupted or in robotic roles. Even though Independent Media might have a more liberal slant than corporate media, it has tackled the idea of fairness much better. I agree with Jeff that there isn't any place for objectivity in media today because of how slanted every side is and the pressure put on reporters to make their bosses look good, or to make their bosses other goods and services look good as well. But Independent Media has the ability to call out both conservative and liberal icons in society. Jeff used examples of independent bloggers covering Obama just as carefully and thoroughly as McCain, a much better overall picture of who each candidate is, much more thorough than corporate media. As an upcoming Journalist, I would choose fighting for a job in Independent Media rather than taking a job corporate media is willing to hand over. My experience, education and overall views would enhance by immersing myself in this medium.

Entertainment coverage in MSM

As we talked about in class today, consumers of the news are receiving a skewered perspective on different trends in the U.S. The Columbia Journalism Review expressed the need for the media to cover more about the effect on children of violence and sex on TV and in video games. While this is an important topic in our society, I don't think it's something the New York Times should be reporting on because there is no easy way to approach the subject objectively. If the media can find the perfect way of reporting both sides of the argument, one side saying TV violence and sex heavily effects children and it should be regulated, and the other side saying it's not the TV that is causing a negative effect in society, then this issue should be addressed in mainstream media. However, this is a highly biased topic that hasn't necessarily been completely proven on either side of the argument.  While I agree with the idea that the NYT should not be focusing on the new Fall lineup for ABC or how NBC is going to improve their shows, I don't think it's worthwhile for the NYT cultural section to spend time on how violence effects children, unless it is clearly labeled as an opinion article or column. The effects of TV, video games and movies is one of those trends that can easily be overplayed and worry the public more than is necessary. It is sort of the same thing as coverage of school shootings. In a sociology class I took, we read a book called Culture of Fear, and this book presented the parts of our society that are made out to be much more because of media's coverage of the events or issues. School shootings are an awful, tragic event, and there have been quite a few in the past, including Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Omish school. However, the media's obsession and excess coverage of the shootings tend to exaggerate the true threat of school shootings. In retrospect, compared to how many days children go to school and come home safely without school shootings or the threat of one, school shootings are a very rare occasion. This can be compared to the effect TV and video games have on children and the ability the media has to blow this issue out of proportion. If the media didn't have a reputation of skewing trends, such as portraying blacks as the main population responsible for rapes or murders when whites perform these crimes at a higher rate, then I would agree with Michael Massing's suggestion of covering this issue. Unfortunately, since the media has a lot to work on, including staying objective and effectively portraying trends, it must focus on covering more important and current issues.

Maxwell McCombs quotes

It is obvious that the news media is more than just the introductory medium of major news events or the important issues of the day. Newspapers, websites and broadcast provide multiple opportunities for the public to learn more about the major events or issues. A newspaper doesn't only provide a catchy headline and an informative lead or nut graf. Details, sources and visuals add depth to the important stories, and readers or scanners have many places to explore to gain more knowledge and information on events or issues the newspapers believe are significant. However, this is the key to what media provides: everything on the front page or even in the front section, are based on a media outlet's bias as to which story or issue is significant enough to cover and to cover in such depth that will effectively inform the public. While the news media does much more than "signal the existence of major events and issues," it might only highlight the ones each medium believes is important or will gain the most readership. I feel as though in all my courses so far at Ithaca College in the Journalism Department, the idea of a news agenda has been pounded into me. Yes, there is such thing as a news agenda, but no, it is not in the best interest of the public. One thing my classes fail to touch on is what can we do, as the next generation to enter the field, to make sure we cover stories equally and in sync with what the public is interested in. As in my last post, it was obvious the media doesn't pay close attention to what its readers/scanners want or are interested in. If people don't think there is something wrong with that, than we definitely have a problem. There is an issue with the way the media chooses which stories and issues to focus on, and there must be ways to accommodate the news medium's popularity and the public's needs and wants.

As scary as it is that the public is only exposed to the stories and issues the media believes is important, the way these stories are presented are even worse. There is an inevitable slant to most stories, whether it be to the right or to the left. The New York Times reporting on John McCain's VP pick is going to largely differ than Fox News reporting on Palin's strong religious background and her unique "difficulties" as an Alaskan governor. Now, it is impossible for a person to not have a bias. I know that I would rather see Obama in office than McCain, and if I were to write an opinion or editorial for a paper I would be able to backup my reasonings and provide multiple examples. However, if I were covering the DNC one week and the RNC another week, it is my job and expectations as a journalist to cover both with a neutral and fair angle. Easier said than done. Yes, it is difficult to write without a bias. Why would I want to write about McCain the same way I report on Obama? As a journalist, though, you give up that right to express your opinion, unless you work on the editorial or opinion pages. As soon as you sign up to enter the field of journalism, there shouldn't be an issue as to whether your writing is subjective or not. You signed up for an industry where neutrality is a must, not a recommendation. Journalism has gotten a bit carried away and the concept of a news agenda is beginning to take off without any control. There needs to be an immediate redirection of the way journalism is going and alot of it I believe starts with the separation of the business/administration part of a newspaper, and the editors and journalists who truly invest their time and effort into each story, instead of worrying about making a profit. In McCombs' second quote, he associates agenda-setting as a "role" of the news media. I am very uncomfortable calling this a "role" of the news media because it sounds as if the news media should be fulfilling this idea of setting an agenda for the public to follow. A role is something that an entity must fulfill and agenda-setting is definitely not something the media should strive for.

State of the News Media

I find the most interesting part of our reading was found in the actual stories the media focused on covering throughout the year. The top stories seemed to have included two of the most talked about issues, the War in Iraq and the 2008 Presidential election. Then I asked myself if these really were two of the hot button issues, or if media created the hyped up environment surrounding the stories. While the continuance of the war was on everyone's mind, as well as the controversial and drawn out Presidential campaigns, there were many other stories that deserved the same, if not more, coverage. Readers, or users/scanners of news as we now refer to them as, were forced to increase their interest and knowledge in these stories that the media stuck on the top of the year's news agenda. By looking at the surveys the project conducted, we can easily see that the public wanted more attention spent on other issues, such as gas prices or the Chinese toy recalls. However, as a consistent user of news and an aspiring journalist, I wouldn't have been able to tell the public was unhappy with the coverage of issues. Since I was working on Capitol Hill this year in my Representative's office (Rep. Paul Hodes, D-NH), I was aware of the top issues for the public for 2008, drilling domestically, the increasing gas prices, and the housing crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But if I wasn't put into this position, as was the case in 2007, I wouldn't have known that these were huge issues if the media wasn't covering them to the extent the public was looking for. With the increasing ways for consumers of news to comment back to the media, through blogs, letters to the editors, or forums, one would think that the media would be more responsive to the public wants and interests. It disappoints me that the media takes it upon itself to decide what takes higher priority on the news agenda. I can imagine that the business side of the media might be influencing these decisions in order to increase or maintain profits, but I would still hope that there are journalists in the industry that are still in the field to inform and cater to the public, instead of going along with the administration side of media and giving in. Where's the fight in journalists? Where is the passion that many journalists entered the field with? It disheartens me a little bit, but it pushes me to continue growing and learning as a journalist, so when I enter the field I can help make changes.