Here are the two readings for the week of Feb 12. For Callahan, please have them read by Feb 14.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adIndndWdkZwR0wwTjQ/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adIna1o5Vmc1bVhpY2M/edit?usp=sharing
Please post your responses to these two articles by noon on the 14th. I will be discussing global media conglomeration, so I am interested in your opinions about global news voices. Is there enough diversity? What impact does a reduction in media voices have on media output?
According to the articles, it appears that both the United States, and other nations around the world are trending towards infotainment. When looking at a history of journalism, it is obvious that news outlets have always looked to “tickle the public” instead of sharing information about politics or policy, but the trend has increased dramatically since the 2000 election. More “important” news that traditionally is centered on policy is now being shared through infotainment, on networks like MTV or in mock-news shows like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Globally, Europe and other media outlets have begun trending this way as well, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteThe second article argues that this change in media voices and intentions changed in 1945. Since WWII, western journalism’s influence has been affecting the rest of the world. Some of the examples given in the article include that western journalism has “triumphed” and has become the global model that other nations are adopting. The author also points out that the population has increased dramatically in this era where more and more people are used to the US’ infotainment. Another important point is that technology advances, primarily the internet, has made global news a real reality for the world that uses it.
I don’t know if there is enough diversity today. I think the United States model for information sharing is a lot better than other models previously in existence. Our model however is still really flawed. The downside to unification is that we all are living in the same flawed system, where certain pieces of important news are never reported, or never emphasized.
I do not think there is enough global news voices. The first article talks about infotainment. And what I have experienced is that certain programs that fit in the category of "infotainment" seem to dominate, and win over the public. These programs become the voice of information through entertainment, and diversity is lost. These mock-news shows become the way people get their information, and the think they are correctly informed. When this happens, much of the important global news is lost and people are naive to the fact that they are missing what is really important.
ReplyDeleteI also think that diversity is lost because the Western world of news dominates. This happens because of the influence and availability of technology, and how advanced Western nations are when it comes to media and technology. But this does not let the rest of the world have a voice. Media output is primarily the voice of the West, and we lack knowledge and news about the rest of the world.
These two articles are both major reasons for lack of diversity in the world of media. The output becomes bias and the world is only hearing about certain nations or parts of the world. "Infotainment" and Western journalism have an influence in news, and this affects the rest of the world. This does not give us an accurate representation of world news, and more diversity would benefit us greatly.
I do not think there is enough diversity of global news voices in global media. I feel that the commercialization of media outlets has in many ways reduced the opportunity for more voices to be heard. Michael Tracey’s comments summarizes the problem at hand; “In a public system, television producers acquire money to make programs. In a commercial system they make programs to acquire money.” Because the success of these outlets are driven by ratings this directly impacts the types of programs that are created. A shift from hard news to soft news has occurred as infotainment has become a significant portion of what is published and broadcasted. The media has a responsibility to inform and educate the public and I feel that this is not happening as it should. We see what sales and entertains instead.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the westernization of global communication I do not think all of the connotations that ‘westernizing’ portrays is accurate. I think the advantages of the modernization that occurs through the help of developed countries is something that should be shared and accepted. Unfortunately as discussed in the article, social and economic developments need to be established before the full effects of modern communication and media can be implemented. I think a greater emphasis should be placed in using resources to help these developing countries progress in these areas so that the technological divide does not continue to grow.
"The public interest, then, defines the public interest," said FCC Chairman Mark Fowler. Like Fowler said, it is the public interest that is driving content in media. I do not believe there is enough diversity but the consumer is to blame. News went from informing, reporting, and entertaining, to strictly entertainment. In our society, news that is "soft" or entertaining takes precedent. As all media outlets began to market their segments as purely entertaining, we lost the diversity aspect we once had in media. We lost interest in policy-based news and have had an ever increasing disinterest in foreign policy. News is now conducted by talking-heads and pretty faces. If it doesn't grab our attention immediately with flashy graphics and sensational reporting, we will not watch it. We are destroying diversity.
ReplyDeleteThis reduction in the amount of media voices and the amount of diverse content limits our knowledge. We eventually become a people of instant gratification where we only consume what is most entertaining. This "infotainment" world is destroying our diversity, but we have no one to blame but ourselves. The main problem with the system is its basis in advertising. Without money, news organizations cannot function. Because this capitalistic way of reporting has merged in western civilization (even public broadcasting organizations need advertisers), media outlets make their money off of your consumption. Their main goal is to get you to watch their programing so advertisers will have to pay big bucks to be featured in the program's commercials. That is the bottom line. The company needs to make money. That is why media has turned to infotainment, because it makes the most money. We are to blame for that.
The media outlets do have the capacity to report great and detailed news. If we, as American citizens, showed more interest in foreign stories, there would be more stories. We control the demand because in the world their is plenty of supply. As westernization spreads globally, the world is able to capture more of our thought and ideals but we do not consume theirs. The rest of the world may have a better sense of diversity but, as westernization spreads, we lose that ability. As technology increases, we will see how great an impact international media will have on the world and we will see how much global news will change. I believe diversity will in media will become smaller as news conglomerates become bigger and bigger. Only time will tell.
I am interested in your opinions about global news voices. Is there enough diversity? What impact does a reduction in media voices have on media output?
ReplyDeleteRather than teaching the public of important events or world topics, the media works to tickle the public, sharing heartwarming stories or appealing to the emotions. The information that we are so often fed, in the news, deals with stories written to entertain, instead of inform. United States society has become so modernized that we often check our news or receive updates through email or on our smart phones. We want to be fed useful information and we want it fast. Business people no longer can justify spending hours sitting down reading a newspaper. Instead we let the public disseminate through information and sift out the unnecessary or boring stories. Our time is so important to us these days. We seek instant gratification and immediate satisfaction. This has changed how media is portrayed and the depth reporters choose to go into. Because of this, global news lacks a lot of diversity that it used to possess. With the lessening of media voices, opinions become more standardized and perceptions are more vague. We are receiving less information, and the information we do receive is catered to the population we, as a society, have become.
Chandler Anderson
To answer the question regarding diversity within the global news voices I would venture to guess that consumerism is in part to blame for a decline in the diversity. As news organizations and media outlets strive for commercial dollars their interest in varying opinions and other sources diminishes in favor of the easiest way to make money. If the public wants the same entertaining, sensational news over and over again that is exactly what they will get as seen at times with the rise of infotainment disguised as news. Also as pointed out in the article “Western Media to World Media” a lot of the standards, practices norms of the western world have been emulated all over the world on a global scale. This further reduces the ability for differing media voices which in turn affect media output. The information world on a global scale becomes so interconnected that people in the Midwest of the United States can learn about an uprising in Africa on the same day it happens. While you might think this would open up the diversity in reality all the news corporations try to jump on the story before it gets too old and then all the news stations are reporting about the same uprising at least until something more interesting happens. In my opinion the global news world is growing bigger and yet the diversity in global voices seem to growing smaller. This changes way media is output and it can bee seen all over the world.
ReplyDeleteDiversity within global news voices may not be at its fullest potential as of yet, but I believe it is certainly growing. Would we be able to say ten, twenty years ago that a Korean singer named PSY would be infiltrating every radio station across the world in a language most western citizens don't understand? Although our decisions to focus on infotainment instead of breaking news is revolutionizing the way we react to content, we have become more open to ideas from other countries. In all honesty, I believe that global voices are speaking louder than before due to our international technical communications. If anything, we are more interested in the changes that are happening around the world even though most of the changes we focus on include Kate Middleton's baby and Korean soap operas.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as long as we are watching and asking, these other voices will get their message across and as human beings we will listen. Our western communication influences have not changed the fact that we are interested in others that are different than us. We may watch Snooki and her gang over on the Jersey Shore, but it is because we are curious of their different lives and even more interested in the different countries that we associate with.
After reading the articles and also experiencing today's media output, I agree that most of news today falls under the "infotainment" category. We have become an entertainment driven society, and I know that I, myself also fall into this issue. Personally, I generally have a little to no knowledge about what is happening in global media, unless it is a big enough event that I hear about it via social media or people talking about it. I think the second article about Western World Media had some good suggestions about things Western media could do to help diversify. Global news stories should take precedence over celebrity gossip, and I like the idea of programs being instituted to train journalists abroad. Since we have the privilege as a society to have such easy access to global information and diversity, we should take better advantage of it.
ReplyDeleteI found the first article especially interesting and thought that the second article helped make sense of why infotainment is happening throughout the world. As I was reading the first article, I thought of my news reading/watching habits and realized I fit the mold the article was talking about. We seek first to be entertained before we are informed. In the Communications 321 class where we write for the Daily Universe, the professor taught us that to have a better chance of our stories being read, we needed some picture that would draw the audience in to compliment our story. After reading this article, I feel like the story was just a compliment to the picture. Another thought I had was about how we try to make news into entertainment ourselves. The O.J. Simpson case is one example that the article gave. Another is this Christopher Dorner story. Yesterday when he was being surrounded by police, one of my friends said, "This is awesome, it's like something you would see on the show 24." We are so hungry for entertainment that we even try and take what is happening in our world and make it into entertainment.
ReplyDeleteThe second article shed a little light on why there is so much infotainment in the world. That is because the West became more commercialized in the news and the rest of the world was, to some extent, copying the West's format. Towards the end of the second article there is a section that asks, "What can be done," to fix the problem? It says that it starts with the journalists being more responsible. However, I don't think that this is going to ever change. I think people will continue reporting the way that gets the most viewers. That means there will likely continue to be less voices out there reporting the news and it will end up being entertainment. As long as there are people watching and reading that's the way it will continue.
Although the public desires to be entertained rather than informed, in the long run, it is not beneficial for us to give them pure entertainment because there are many other places they can get that. With the Internet and Facebook, there are plenty of forums for people to get their entertainment, they don't need news networks to provide them with that. This western media has spread to the rest of the world, leaving more individuals consuming this soft journalism. I think that there is diversity in western news if you look very hard for it, but for the average consumer just flipping through the television watches the same types of programs with a similar line-up of fluffy journalism. As media conglomerations become fewer and fewer, journalists are forced to think about their sponsors and who is paying their bills rather than what the public deserves to hear. Even as I have worked for "The Universe" I have realized how little control reporters and editors have over the paper. The decisions of what runs lies with the people who are looking out for the newspaper owner's public interests. Even if a story is true, timely and interesting it may not run because it wil shed the school in a bad light.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Riggs
I thought that the first article on infotainment made many interesting points. Editors and journalists, like any other profession, must make their decisions based upon what will be best for the organization and the bottom line. They do not make decisions based upon what they think will result in the most educated and informed public, they make decisions on what to run based upon what the public wants to consume. Global news is the way it is because that is what the public has silently chosen as their preference. There are usually one or two "hot topics" at a given time and these are what the public wants to watch/read about. Because almost all news outlets will be wanting to report on these issues, there is a general decrease in diversity.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting to see the development of media and how it evolved into infortainment. Our desire for entertainment simply outweighed our need/desire for information. Also because the media world is built upon profit, what makes money is whats important. We truly only have a superficial interest in news specifically pertaining to world news (as is seen by the great knowledge of current news found in our class...). Though it may be true that there are other voices that are now being heard (Twitter, Youtube, etc) the news I feel will continue being the way it is unless a drastic change occurs. I really dont think this is something that can simply be fixed as the article mentions. There is no profit in only telling the news, someone has to watch it to make it profitable, and as long as we as ask for infotainment, that is exactly what we will be given.
ReplyDeleteThe media today has developed almost completely into the category of infotainment. One segment of "Western Media to World Media" really stood out to me as a concern of why media fails to notice or cover stories of global importance. The author raises the point that "when national security is endangered or great natural calamities threaten, people everywhere are reminded how important it is to know and understand the greater world." It is concerning that people only seem to recognize the fact that there is a greater world when some sort of terrible tragedy is about to happen or already has happened. Even though media is growing, and there are all sorts of new media outlets, it seems that hard journalism is dying. Infotainment is what a majority of Westerners demand, and western journalism has been shown to influence journalism worldwide. The only way to get out of this cycle seems to be turning around western journalism and focusing on issues that matter on a global scale.
ReplyDeleteIn the infortainment article, I thought the most interesting information was about each nation's media history, like Moscow's for instance which led to the break-up of the soviet union. And the first director general of BBC when he said the new media of radio and television is "to inform, educate, and entertain" the public. while also recognizing that "entertaining the public was key to its success". We see this evidence in the news shift in the US and the marketing suggestions given to include more "soft-feature stories" in their news. I feel like most nations have adapted this view on infotainment for the most part, with the US taking this stance the most.
ReplyDeleteI thought a really interesting part of the second article was about how much international news actually gets shared. We said in class how the US focuses almost solely on US news, however if war breaks our in the middle east like the article says, gas prices in the US will surely increase. Despite all of the inadequacies of an international news or media system, it definitely moves a lot of information faster than ever before.
As we mentioned in class, the number of communication powers in the world is few, causing for a smaller world. The Western Media article diagnosed that, “Bigger conglomerates and fewer competitors means greater profits but less variety and diversity.” When analyzing the history of communications, it is important to realize what it means for a society and its impact. What does a small number of news or communicative powers mean? It seems to mean that the different views of the world may be getting narrower as these companies try to push their agenda and share things that are important to them or a certain demographic. This lack of diversity may cause people to get sick of major networks and companies as the view that they want to hear or stories they want are ignored.
ReplyDeleteBlogs and video journalism (on sites like YouTube) have become more common recently and give more people a voice and an opportunity to be journalists. The popularity of the rise of these forms of communication may be due to the consolidation of communicative powers as the variety is being lessened. Blogging gives the soccer mom and the common citizen a voice. If I was to poll my friends or peers, I would imagine that most of them read at least one blog. It may just be speculative that blogs and other forms of journalism have become popular due to a fewer number of major communication companies, but it makes you wonder what the future of news will be. If blogging and videos become the future of news instead of the traditional powers, there will be more diversity and variety, but traditional journalism will change. President Obama has mentioned on this topic that, “if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, then what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding, ”(Nichols, 2009). The lessened variety may lead more people in the future going to alternative means of getting their news.
Eric Vincent
I totally agree that we live in a world of "infotainment." Though I think it is sad and kind of embarrassing, I am a participant and only feed the situation. I think we could ask anyone around us what some recent news stories are and then ask about current celebrity gossip and get more information on the latter. I think a perfect example is the Kate Middleton pregnancy, and of course the Royal wedding. I think it is a little ridiculous how much media focused/focuses on these events. It is almost demeaning to the people involved in the serious news stories. But this is what people are demanding, and that is why it is all over the news. I often find myself getting the news from places like SNL's weekend update or late night shows. I mean, these shows do give some factual information, but the main focus is more to entertain or make people laugh.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a lack of diversity in our more broadcast news sources. There are only so many minutes in a newscast and the broadcast systems want to use these minutes to improve their ratings and therefore their profits. In order to get good ratings they need to show people things that intrigue them. For many people sitting down in front of the television is a time to escape reality. This feeds into the popularity of infotainment because the news companies realize this.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't just isolated to television news like the articles talked about. If you look most online news sites there are heavy doses of infotainment. Stories of Shetland ponies in sweaters, whether Beyonce was inappropriate at the Super Bowl, etc. grace the front page of these websites. You can search for more diversity throughout the internet and find it but the major news outlets are missing it.
The reduction of media voices, especially in traditional broadcast mediums, contributes to the lack of diversity. Because of ratings competition they want to have the new that appeals to the most people. There isn't as much interest in appealing to the niche groups that more media voices could talk to. The reduction of media voices like this is being turned around by the internet. There may be less broadcast voices but citizen journalists and blogs are starting to diversify the news.
I'd like to talk more about the tickle the public idea. It seems like there is a divide between people who want the public to be informed and those who want to take advantage of the public because they don't want to be informed. Real, top-notch news reporting has become a niche market. Infotainment has definitely taken over. To me, journalists need to be better and more passionate than ever in order to provide news that is both entertaining and brings heavy topics to light. I think the Colbert Report does a good job of this. He really does bring up heavy issues and heavy news. He just makes it entertaining. I have learned a ton from that news source.
ReplyDeleteI don't actually believe in a reduction of media voices. True, media conglomerates are taking over. However, they are often getting their news from Twitter now. Twitter gives the people a voice in the news. YouTube channels also serve as a source to get your voice out. I think more voices are heard now than ever.
People are looking for a world of infotainment and not real journalism any more. I am guilty of it as well. If I didn't feel stupid when everyone was talking about the current news, I might not ever really find time to learn about it. We have grown up in a world that we think revolves around ourself. Even Cass Sunstein recognized this as he wrote about "The Daily Me." We have the ability to pick and choose what news gets to us through facebook and twitter feeds, specific channels on the TV and on the internet. 20 years ago, that wasn't possible to do. You got the same news everyone else got. But here's the big problem, there is MONEY in out system today. Money is golfing news and news from the runway in Paris. But hard news is dying because no one seems to care enough. Well that's not true, not enough people seem to care. When tragedy like New Town strike, then the nation seems to come together for a day or two, but then we're back off with our noses buried in celeb gossip.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has studied international media, including the writers of these articles (mostly the second one), will tell you that there is not enough diversity in international news. There are two main problems in my opinion: 1. people don't care, and 2. it's more expensive. People want something that's entertaining to watch, and they've wanted this ever since packaged news really began. During the time of the penny press, it was known that these newspapers "gave working people a diversion." Working people don't always want to hear about what's going on in Bangladesh, especially if there is no conflict on the horizon that affects them, and if people don't care, news organizations don't want to spend millions of dollars establishing a worldwide network. This is why there isn't much diversity in the news; only a few organizations can handle the overhead associated with it. This reduction of media voices means less competitive information which usually means just scratching the surface of an issue because no one is out there to do it better than you.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s an interesting shift that most countries have taken towards infotainment. I propose that the shift happened because of WWII and the 1960’s. I believe that during this time, the U.S. and some world communicators became numb to all the hard news they were reporting with regards to the war. In order to make the news more appealing, there had to be a shift toward infotainment. Consumers of news have since been bread to respond positively to this tradition. There just isn’t a market for hard news stories; the public can only handle so many policy/war stories.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a degree about the westernization of global communication. I believe there was a time when the U.S. and prominent European countries dominated the global networks but I believe the amount of diversity is about to change. Thanks to the ease of social media sites such as blogs and YouTube, many underdeveloped countries can create more content even if the content is not as commercialized as what the western world may produce.
I wonder if our perception of global communication in this class is biased because we are Americans and our perception of world news is only focused on those aspects that directly involve our country.
Reading these articles reminded me of a wonderful book called Amusing Ourselves to Death. The book talks about how television has caused us to look at news, politics, religion, and education as entertainment. Media has taken what was once considered important and sacred and turned it into useless content or in other words infotainment. International media has slowly become US media or infotainment media. Pop culture is more important than international cultures. There isn't much diversity because we don't want it. We want to be entertained. We need it to capture our attention and if it is not interesting than it doesn't have our attention. The impact of all this is being felt at the moment. We have a celebrity President. Not sure how much of a leader he is, but he looks good doing it. Not sure why we're still in other countries but we look good doing it. It's all very entertaining isn't it until something else comes on so I have to switch the channel and make sure I don't miss out on who is wearing what on the red carpet.
ReplyDeleteDiversity is not present in global news. There are significant trends to towards a media monopoly. The big media corporations are growing and competition is dwindling. It is hard to compete with these huge conglomerates. Because of these huge companies, there is just no room for any competition of smaller corporations. It takes years to become popular and "trusted" as a news source. I think this makes media distribution skewed. I don't think it becomes biased, but it definitely becomes skewed as only a few sources are reporting in the major media.
ReplyDeleteI also found the shortcomings of audiences very interesting. It is so true that we read or hear about the news, but we don't necessarily know all the details or really care too much. We feel as though we need to watch the news, but how much of it do we actually care about or retain? I think this is why infotainment is so popular. These are the type of things that most people will gossip about. They won't normally talk about the news for that day. The popularity of infotainment is because people crave dramatized material.
I do not think that there is enough diversity in international news. When I think about what I see on television regarding international news it mostly regards countries in the Middle East, a little bit of North Korea and then some pop culture story about Kate Middleton. The media is very biased about what it broadcasts. It knows that Kate Middleton is popular and that when they talk about her viewers will be interested. Also, like we discussed in class, the US media mostly shows international stories that are connected to the US. If there isn't a common interest in a story they won't broadcast it. I think diversity in the news could increase with showing stories from different nations that might not have a primary effect on the US but even if it is more human interest. I love other countries and the culture of different nations so I would like to know what is effecting the country and how/if the culture is changing, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot more infotainment than actual news these days. I think a lot of this has to do with people wanting to take advantage of people and make a quick buck. Actual news is harder to get and takes more time and effort. Who would want to spend time on that? So the news is probably skin-deep most of the time. So diversity is scarce in global news. I'm starting to realize why the general opinion is that we are overloaded with information, but not knowledge. Youtube and other social mediums provide plenty of information, but not much substance.
ReplyDeletePreston Wittwer
ReplyDeleteThe chapter on infotainment was interesting for me for a number of reasons. First, this morning before even reading these chapters I decided to start watching "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" again every day because I'll be interning in DC this summer and feel the need to start paying attention to political news. I realize that these are the most professional ways of following the news, but it is my favorite way to do it. I am a part of the problem described in the chapter, but it is the world I live in. I haven't developed the level of maturity or don't reached the level of intense interest in news to try and process hard news in a more traditional and respectable way.
The other thing that interested me about the idea of infotainment is the history that has led to a culture that encourages and consumes infotainment the way we do. Like the reading suggested, the lack of trust in news and politics from the Cold War and Watergate has led to a national public that is weary of politicians and skeptical of most things told to them. So, instead we resort to something we recognize at face value and understand: humor. So it goes.
Oh I definitely agree that our society has turned towards more "infotainment" than actual news. So much of what we actual view and listen to nowadays seems to me like celebrity gossip, and we never really delve in too deep with the real issues of the world. News media ultimately chooses what it does to show because it sells, and that is the kind of news that makes money for them. They know people will be interested in these stories about people and drama because it is what brings in the viewers. In terms of international news, I feel like we only get to the surface of many of those issues. We are a very self-centered society. The US is concerned about the US. So if there is no real connection between the US and what is going on globally, I feel like the news media will not broadcast that story. I mean, that is not to say that everyone in the US is self-centered, but I think that is how the majority of Americans are sometimes. If it is not affecting them, why should they pay attention? I would hope that this is not the case though.
ReplyDeleteI know it gets a bad name, but I like infotainment, y'all! I understand from our class discussions and the really that it hinder the diversification of media messages and voices, and this is a tragic development in the world of news reporting and journalism. However, I still prefer soft news stories to hard ones. The reading noted that crime, celebrity, and human interest stories are more marketable than policy or political issues, and I am absolutely in agreement with this statement. This idea is demonstrated on the reg in your typical grocery store. When you check out, you are bombarded with political magazines or hard news stories. Instead there are fitness magazines, cooking magazines, and every celebrity news story you could ever possibly want to read. This does put the voices of more traditional news on the back burner. I always thought this trend was new with our generation, but it was interesting to read that it actually began way back when with the penny press. This tension between informing the public and entertaining the crowd poses a real challenge for journalists everywhere.
ReplyDeleteIs there enough diversity? Probably not. Because we have had a shift to fewer voices. We have also had a shift in the way media is controlled. As well as a declining standard. Standard of how news is gathered, and reported. Another interesting effect of reduced media voices is the fact that we might know that things are happening but we don't take the time to learn more about them. We hear about war in the Middle East, and think only about the effect it will have at the gas pump.
ReplyDeleteThe article talked about what can be done. And one thing I was thinking about is that there is a new wave of social media being used as a source of news. Revolutions are starting because of things happening on Facebook. And I know many of my friends only get their news off a twitter feed. I wonder if there is going to be a shift in media back to smaller voices? Or if people will just find a way to better control these social media sites?
Global news voices today are shrinking due to infotainment and the only one to blame is us. Although we all hope that journalism is meant to inform the public, media is a business. The problem is that there is too much diversity. Networks today have too much competition. To stay alive they must get high ratings, which causes them to downgrade their reporting. More scandals, better looking reporters, and PR hand-feeding stories to reporters, what does this say about us as a society? We don't care. Honestly, if I'm watching TV on my own I rarely watch the news and less often keep watching the news when a political or international story comes on. It's boring and I don't understand it. I am uninformed and I know it. Today, I feel like I see depressing stories all the time and have become insensitive to disasters as I watch them on TV. The news feels like a reality TV show.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is enough diversity, there is always room for more diversity. All the media outlets are controlled by only a few stations which makes it hard for the public to receive an unbiased and correct information sometimes. Our society is a world of infotainment. The media just wants to send out media that will draw in viewers and they are less concerned about facts. The media thinks we just want to hear about celebrities, but I think this is turning people away from media. Personally I think when we are bombarded by celebrities it makes us not want to watch or view media. We need to have more information and less infotainment.
ReplyDeleteAs consumers, we are the issue. We have grown up in an “infotainment” world and really don’t know anything different. Like we’ve discussed in class, the news outlets revolve around the people delivering the news. They are the stars of the show; people tune in to watch them, instead of tuning in to watch the most creditable news source. But finding a hard news story takes more time and requires much more effort and because everything in the world revolves around money and ratings, it is more time efficient to find the quick story. As consumers we’ve grown accustomed to this type of news and now that is all we want. As a culture, how do we change they type of news we are looking for?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of diversity of topic, I don't think there is enough diversity. The articles' comments on infotainment make this apparent. One could argue that we, as humans, simply have a few things that catch our attention. However, I think the news media has simply been dumbed down to the point where every outlet carries the same headlines, and those headlines tend to have the same themes, week after week. You can almost depend on the top headlines following this sort of pattern: one about sports, one about murder, one about a natural disaster, and one about a celebrity. There seems to be very little variation.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of *cultural* diversity, I believe that we embrace it. This is very apparent in the media. I do think there is a sense that all cultures are growing closer to one another, perhaps becoming homogeneous, but I don't feel as though there are hoards of voices going unheard. Perhaps this is a naive thought, but I feel like, in infotainment especially (as deplorable as some might argue it is), we become more and more aware of cultural niches, vernacular, pop-culture, etc. A lot of our culture, even our pop-culture, is important. The British Invasions, the Korean Wave... these are examples of mainstream media showing great diversity.
Those are my thoughts: We are rich on cultural diversity, but poor on content diversity.
Global news media should is dominated by the western world. The cost to produce popular, infotainment that people will actually want to consume is so high that it is only possible for a few media conglomerates to produce it. Globalization has molded the world to a point where more diversity has become very unlikely. Western media as we know it today has become so popular and financially successful, that different media producers can hardly compete. This causes the world to be much more exposed to news that only affects the United States and Europe.
ReplyDeleteWhile televised news content is lacking in diversity, the internet is able to offset the lack of diversity to a certain point. People will continue to look for western infotainment online, but are at least able to access a greater variety of sources for their news due to lower production costs.
After reading the articles, the part that stuck out to me was found in the broadcasting section where it talks about for private profit or public service. I found the phrase "tickling the public" very interesting. I wasn't shocked that this was happening, because it still happens today, I just thought the phrase fit it well.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this section how it says that public communication can create public value. I agree with this because if the general public is communicating and getting the same information, the public value will naturally increase. Since the people are educated on what is happening, they will change the way things happen and the way they as people do things. This will make value of not only the public go up, but possibly the products.
I feel that there is definitely room for a greater range of global voices to be heard, but through realistic eyes, we drive the media. We want infotainment. We want relevancy. Often times neither of these are fulfilled when we get too much input from global sources. Is it a good thing? I dont think so. I feel we miss out on some valuable stories and news.
ReplyDeleteThere are options available for those who want global news, but it is not what's popular. So, I dont believe we are neglecting to want it, we just dont want to accept it yet.