Media

Newspapers. Media began with the written word . . . To date, the oldest existing written document dates back to 2200 B. C. By 500 B. C. Persia had developed a form of pony express and the Greeks had a telegraph system consisting of trumpets, drums, shouting, beacon fires, smoke signals, and mirrors; transmitting a form of communication to the masses. In 200 B. C. the Chinese circulated the first newspaper, the Tipao gazette, to government officials. Newsletters began circulating in Europe by 1450. Over 150 years later, in 1609, the first regularly published newspaper was circulated in Germany.

Advertising began to shape the media industry by 1631 with the first classified ads featured in a French newspaper. And, in 1833 a New York newspaper was sold for one penny, enabling this media to reach a mass market. Radio. At first there was the print, and then there was sound . . . In 1821 an English man named Wheatstone reproduced sound. However, the future of radio didnt really begin until 1890 when Branly transmitted the first radio waves in France. In 1901 the American Marconi Company, the forerunner of RCA, sent radio signals across the Atlantic.

And five years later, a program of voice and music was broadcast in the United States. In 1907 DeForest began a regular radio broadcast featuring music. In 1909 the first talk-radio format, covering womens suffrage, was broadcast. And in 1912, the United States Congress passed a law to regulate radio stations. In 1917 the first radio station, KDKA, was built; and in 1920 the first scheduled programs on KDKA were broadcast. The going rate for ten minutes of commercial airtime was $100. By 1924, the first sponsored radio program, The Eveready Hour, began.

In that same year there were two and a half million radio sets in the United States. The 1930s are characterized as the Golden Age of radio. In 1929 automobile manufacturers began installing radios in cars. In 1933 Armstrong discovered FM waves. And in 1934, the government passed the Communications Act, creating the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In that same year, half of all American homes had at least one radio set. In 1935 A. C. Nielsen began to track radio audiences. And by 1954, radio sets outnumbered newspapers printed daily.

This signified the death of one mass medium and the creation of another. By 1996 there were about 12,000 radio stations in the U. S. , drawing millions of listeners and more than $12 billion in advertising revenue. 1996 also saw the deregulation of the mass media industry with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, thereby opening up the market for mass mergers and acquisitions and creating electronic barons. One half of all radio stations are owned by corporations that have three or more stations, and there are 1,100 fewer station owners today than before the creation of the Telecommunications Act.

Even more alarming, the top three radio operators, Chancellor Media/Capstar, CBS Radio/Infinity, and Clear Channel/Jacor, control almost 35 percent of industry revenues. Television. And then there was light . . . In 1907 a Russian named Rosing developed the theory of television. By 1928, three television sets were put in homes. And in that same year, the first scheduled broadcasts evolved in Schenectady, New York. In 1939 the New York Worlds Fair premiered the television to the public. That same year, regular television broadcasts began.

By 1941, NBC and CBS began commercial transmissions, and by 1949 network television resonated throughout America. By 1951, there were one and a half million television sets in the United States. In 1954, regular color television broadcasts began. And, in 1963 television news came of age with the broadcast and reporting of John F. Kennedys assassination. By 1965, almost all broadcasts were filmed in color, and the FCC regulated cable television. In 1968 there were 78 million televisions in American homes, and approximately 200 million sets around the globe. A new mass medium was coming of age.

My topic will address how minorities and women are misrepresented in the media and how they are stereotyped. I plan to show how minorities and women are depicted or stereotyped unfairly in the news, on television, and in general.

In an article from USA Today magazine, it illustrated that if you have watched, listened to, and read media all your life, you probably have filed these images into your thinking process: African-Americans are mostly rap stars, professional athletes, drug addicts, welfare mothers, criminals and/or murderers; Latinos are illegal aliens, ignorant immigrants who take, but give little back to the ountry and can’t even speak the language, or drug-crazed thugs who have no respect for law or order; Asian-Americans are either weak, model citizens or inscrutable, manipulative, or uncaring invaders of business, especially in the United States; Native Americans are illiterate, drunken Indians who hate all Caucasians and sleep away their lives. (Saltzman, 1994) If you are like most middle-class Americans, most of what you know about members of other races or religions comes from what you read in the paper, hear on radio, or see on television. It is easy to see that racial and ethnic stereotypes still dominate uch of reporting today.

In today’s media, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans and Native Americans either are treated as invisible or the source of a particular problem: crime, immigration, or the economy. In reference to Native-Americans: when you watch a sport such as the Atlanta Braves baseball team or the Washington Redskins football team, you see the tomahawk chop and chants at these baseball or football games. Anything wrong with this? As for Hispanics, “You find a few Hispanics sprinkled through the networks but in supporting roles” says Hollywood publicist, Luis Reyes. They are put there for color. ” (Heller 1994) In 1993, Hispanics who numbered 25 million in the United States, played in only eleven of the 800 prime-time network TV parts, according to a March 1993 Newsweek study.

Another study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, found that of more than 7,000 TV characters on 620 prime-time shows between 1955 and 1987, there were 2 percent Hispanics and 6 percent Blacks. Last year, Common Law lasted only four episodes on ABC. Today, there are no shows that I can think of that are all Hispanic — you have to go to cable TV to find a show. Now turning to Asians on TV, if you remember the show “All American Girl” which depicted a Korean family, it is no longer on the air. Where do we see them now? No where. Now let’s focus on African-Americans. Television’s most prominent black men are athletes and entertainers. On the court, on the field, on the rap stage, they are heroes to both Whites and Blacks, particularly to the young. What does this do?

They may give an impressionable viewer the notion that speed, strength, and bad language will do for them what it has done for its heroes. Elsewhere on the small screen an be found black news anchors, reporters and commentators as well as actors, social workers, teachers, and public officials who represents different roads to achievement. But not even Colin Powell can compete in the dreams of most youngsters with that of a Shaquille O’Neal or Michael Jordan. Dr. Camille Cosby, who received her doctorate in education (her husband is Bill Cosby) has written a book: “Television’s Imageable Influences: The Self Perception of Young African-Americans,” which charts the damaging impact of derogatory images of African-Americans produced by our media.

She observed that self-esteem is considered a pre-requisite for success. She states, “What impact would it have on your psyche to see your people constantly portrayed as the devoted servant, the chicken and watermelon eater, the sexual superman, or the social delinquent, among many other derogatory images? ” It is for these and other reasons that Dr. Cosby wrote her book to emphasize the real human cost of media misinformation and indifference. Dr. Cosby also states, “As a mother, I am very aware of what children watch and how they are influenced by TV, movies, ewspapers and art. The way the media distorts our differences is a covert divide and conquer strategy which I regard as a violation of human rights. (Johnson, 1995)

When Blacks are invited into homes via television, it evidently is easier for viewers to laugh at African-Americans than to see them effectively addressing their problems. Former TV comedies such as the highly rated Roseanne and Grace Under Fire, addressed serious issues such as wife abuse, forced unemployment, and divorce within the white working class, but similar issues come up short on black shows. This suggests that Blacks must be fun-loving and happy-go-lucky no matter how dire the circumstance. This “Don’t worry, be happy” mentality was illustrated in “A Different World,” a comedy about black college life as a spin-off from the ground breaking Cosby Show.

But it focused on more partying; more relationship matters than on serious academics. As for women, a report which analyzed media coverage of women, found that the “white male, as reported by the media, is the subtle norm by which all else is gauged. ” For example, when the subject is a white male, eference to his race and gender is rarely noted, whereas descriptive phrases, such as “black leader” or “female candidate” are often employed in addition to that person’s name and title. Images and beliefs concerning women are far more prominent in our society than those of men. Women are always the ones cooking, cleaning, doing household tasks or taking care of children.

They are portrayed as being emotionally and physically inferior and submissive to men. Women are visualized as weak creatures. They tend to be confined to a life dictated by family and personal relationships. Men almost always dominate television programs. Figures show that in television drama women are outnumbered by men 3:1 or 4:1; in cartoons women are outnumbered 10:1; and in soap operas women are outnumbered 7:3. (Ingham 1997) In daily shows such as soap operas, women are usually hysterical, crying and emotionally out of control. This personifies women as being the inferior sex, which leads to many false stereotypes. Women as sex objects are the most common stereotype of women on television.

Now turning to the television network, Fox executives first mbarked on their quest for the young-urban market dollar, by offering performers such as Keenan Ivory Wayans and Charles Dutton titles that promised an unusually high degree of creative control for African-Americans. Of course, the deals weren’t exactly what they were cracked up to be. When the TV show, In Living Color hit big, the upstart network got greedy and attempted to make syndication dollars on Thursdays while continuing with first-run episodes Sundays. Naturally the Wayans family walked. And when the TV show Roc failed to earn big ratings, Fox began using its veto power over the shows content. The shows Roc and South Central depicted reality-based black families. Even though Roc was canceled, it went out with a fight.

In a last ditch effort to salvage the working-class dramedy (comedy/drama), 29 black members of congress signed a letter of protest to Rupert Murdock (President of Fox network) while Congressman Ed Towns even issued a statement that members of the congressional black caucus will not stand for the “paternalistic” cancellation of positive black shows.

The star of Roc, Charles Dutton in commenting on his show in the magazine Village Voice” says, “It is my opinion that if I was doing what Martin Lawrence was doing, if I was doing what some of the baffoon male characters on Living Single were doing, if our show was made of fluff-lightweight material such as Family Matters and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, I would have been on the air for five more seasons. ” (Zook, 1994) Now some solutions for the news.

More than 5,000 minority journalists at a unity ’94 conference in Atlanta, said the solution is to increase racial and ethnic minorities in news management ranks so that those who report, edit and decide hat goes on via the media are proportionately representative of the public at large. The number of minorities in the media have increased in recent years, but that rate isn’t fast enough. It is unjustifiable that the men and few women who manage the media continue to do so without the benefit of enough input from racial and ethnic minorities to make a difference. (Sunoo, 1994) Perhaps in the television arena, we could ask viewers what they think about the shows on the air; we need to encourage open dialogue.

We need to show that diversity is a long-term commitment to change. Don’t just focus on diversity when it’s black history month or Cinco De Mayo; focus on diversity all the time. In summary, I hope I have enlightened us all to know that there is minority misrepresentation in the media, whether it be Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans or Women. There are a number of solutions possible, but until mainstream America sees it as a problem, I don’t think it will change too fast. As for stereotyping, the familiar saying, “Don’t be too fast to judge a book by its cover” is easy to say, but unfortunately most look at the cover before opening the book.

It started by way of messengers and scribes, evolved through the presentation of newspapers and radio, brought us together with television, and now serves us world-wide via the ever-popular Internet. It is the mass media, and even from the earliest days of its existence, it has contributed greatly in ways that both enlighten and enrich society, and ways that deteriorate and perplex it. It is not a surprise to learn, then, that the mass media is the most powerful source of information we have, and nothing else in todays world influences public perception quite as heavily.

Unfortunately, however, most of what is broadcast or transmitted in the news today is with reference to the chaotic condition of our planet, or something else that society as a whole sees as detrimental or damaging. But the news on television is not the only type of media taking the criticism of society. Other forms of mass media, specifically movies and television programs containing pornography and violence have been heavily criticized. The underlining concept to be debated here is that society is negatively influenced, specifically, by these images of pornography and the result is increased violence against women.

This assumption, and it is indeed only an assumption, is completely fallacious, however, as no concrete and completely conclusive evidence has ever been formulated in support of the theory. The key premise here is that the mass media does not cause undesirable social behaviour and in actuality, the media people should not be dubbed as the bad guys. They simply use their power in the most constructive ways possible in order to promote their ratings and popularity. One way to do that is to concentrate on what sells: sex, violence and disaster.

Having said this, why is it then, that many in society still believe otherwise; why do they continue to believe that pornography is evil and is a major cause for violence against women, specifically rape? There are many reasons for this misinterpretation and through the following few points, an attempt will be made to show that pornography has very little to almost no correlation with violence against women (of course nothing is absolute in society). In order to demonstrate this, it must be made evident that pornography is not evil and does not cause undesirable social behaviour by displaying nude women in sexually explicit circumstances.

Thus, it is important to indicate that women are not treated only as sexual objects through the media. This is done in an attempt to quash any traces of evil in pornography. Subsequently, a second point, that some may consider to be completely bizarre, can be addressed; that pornography actually reduces the amount of violence against women. For thousands of years, sex itself has been considered evil and revolting. This is exactly why the concealment of the sex organs and teaching feelings of shame toward human sexuality is so common worldwide (Christensen 1990:4).

These same feelings of shame are the chief reasons that sex is considered a personal and private matter. Contrary to the beliefs of many, the mass media did not create these settings; society creates this image. In some societies, women have no reservations with regard to living their entire lives completely naked, while in other societies, females cover themselves from head to toe, only revealing their eyes. The media has been bombarded with criticism, overwhelmingly from the female community, relative to the amount of sexually explicit material that is published in magazines and that appears on television and in the cinemas.

A common argument against pornography is that the media portrays women as being nothing more than sexual playthings and objects to satisfy male sexual desires. As before, the media once again, is not to be held responsible for creating this image; these views are products of society. It would be downright absurd to assume that women in this society are treated as sexual objects only because the media releases or broadcasts pornographic material. A magazine associated with make-up and skin care, for example, will quite obviously not be concentrating on much else.

Such a magazine would not display pictures of women who mountain-climb or women who water-ski; only images of make-up and text referring to skin care would be relevant. Clearly, society does not consider women to be beings whos only purpose in life is to worry about make-up and skin care; but why are the complaints only directed towards pornographic media then? The answer to this question may be more complicated, however, what remains obvious is that the media does not portray women as only being able to fill male sexual desires.

To say that pictures featuring nudity, etc, are making objects out of women is foolish. One should consider females who pin-up posters of male rock stars or children who collect hockey or baseball cards. Society, however, does not say that objects are being made out of these rock stars and sports heroes; pictures of clothed people are no less objects than pictures of naked people. Many complaints are also made to the effect that pornography only offers a one- dimensional view to life; that women are seen as nymphomaniacs who are hysterically addicted to sex.

It should be pointed out that events such as hockey games, boxing matches, horse races and operas all offer a one-dimensional view of life. One does not attend an opera hoping to see a horse race. The underling problem here is that the above mentioned events are socially acceptable; media displaying pornography is not. It is also said that the media reduces women to a collection of body parts through pornography (Christensen 1990:74). But why then are their no complaints of advertisements in magazines displaying only ears, for example, or a nose, or feet?

The reason is a simple one; society considers certain body parts to be shameful or disgusting and once again, the media can be let off the hook. Realistically, the only way to prevent women from being seen as sex objects is for them to be seen as other things as well; but to say that women are not sexual beings would be misleading because both men and women are very much sexual (Christensen 1990:42). Similarly, to say that women are singled out in the media is fallacious due to the many examples of media where men are seen catering to the needs of women; something known as chivralic sexism (Christensen 1990:42).

Take, for instance, a recent television ad portraying young men groveling at the feet of supermodel Cindy Crawford, almost begging to be the one to cater to her needs. There were no lineups of men aching to announce their displeasure with the sexist ad; and this is precisely why male stereotyping in the media often goes unnoticed. Similarly, it is pornography in the media that is noticed and shunned by anti-pornographic and censorship organizations because it seemingly singles out females for their bodies.

It should be well noted, however, that paperback romance novels, which make up an incredible 40% of total paperback sales (Gerbner 1988:15), depicts males as sexual objects, performing what is called Sweet Savagery (rape), just as pornography depicts females as sexual objects. But once again, this goes unnoticed. It is fundamentally important to realize that the media does not deliberately create images of hate or disagreement (Howitt, Cumberbatch 1975:80). They just influence the more appealing things in society (thus directly increasing their ratings).

Although it is obvious that pornography is largely a male interest, a noted increase in female interest would certainly cause an increase in the amount of pornographic material geared for women; this relates to the laws of the business world (Christensen 1990:50). Having discussed the untruthfulness of the claims against pornography and showing that pornography is not evil, it is now possible to consider the violence issue. Are men who are exposed to pornography likely to commit violent acts, such as rape against women, more so than men who are not exposed to pornography?

It is tempting to believe that media influences males and overstimulates them through pornography to the point that they become aggressive towards females. But this is completely baseless; just as pornography arouses or stimulates, it also satisfies. The American Commission on Obscenity and Pornography performed a study in which several college students were asked to spend one and a half hours in an isolated room with a large volume of pornographic media, as well as a large volume of non-explicit media such as Readers Digest (Howitt, Cumberbatch 1975:80).

The study was conducted over a three week period over which time it was discovered that the males involved in the experiment began to lose interest, or become desensitized to the erotic media nearing the end of the experiment, even if new material was added. To address the argument that males are pushed over the brink into committing rape because of pornography, one may point to the evidence above; to cover the female body would theoretically only increase male sexual desires. Four more separate experiments were conducted of which the above was one.

Three other experiments came to the conclusions that pornography does not cause violence against women and reported that the number of sex offenders that had been exposed to pornographic material were smaller in number than the amount of sex-offenders that had not been exposed to pornography (Christensen 1990:130; Harmon, Check 1988:28-30). These results can be offered as evidence against the claim that males become overstimulated and thus dangerous when exposed to pornography.

Other experiments conducted in the early 1980s by the Williams Committee in England, reported that as the availability and abundance of sexually explicit material increased, the number of violent sex crimes such as rape did not increase, but in fact decreased in many areas (Christensen 1990:128-129). So what is it about pornography that women and anti-pornography organizations do not like? Violence! One of the greatest myths about pornography is that it contains an excess of violence against women inevitably resulting in real-life violence against women.

Anti-pornography groups release propaganda that the media approves of violence against women through pornography. In actuality, however, the total amount of violence in sex-related movies was found to be approximately 6% in a study by T. Palys in the early 1980s in Vancouver, Canada. Even this material was almost entirely composed of verbal threats and spanking (Christensen 1990:59). In addition to the above, studies in Ohio also found that the amount of violence in G-Rated movies was a staggering two times more than in X-Rated movies.

In fact, major films such as Die Hard: With A Vengeance and Terminator 2, contain extreme violence 85-90% of which is directed solely at men. There are, however, exceptions; the slasher genre of movies contain much more violence towards women, possibly due to the desensitization to violence in other genres of films. Because women are involved, violence against them could create a true sense of horror. However, this does not suggest that men should go into society and rape a woman any more than it suggests that men should go out and kill other men.

Horror movie fans choose to watch these movies because they enjoy portrayed violence. Needless to say, no sane individual would wish for this violence to become a real-life conception. Similarly, sex also excites people and because these two elements offer the most thrills in movies, they are often combined. It should be pointed out that women, and not just men, also enjoy these thrills based on numerous studies. When discussing pornography, it is scarcely noted that men are not the only ones who enjoy fantasizing about sex. Women also enjoy pondering sex; just not through pornography.

In fact, most of these fantasies involve some degree of violence or force and are largely driven by the romance novels discussed earlier (once again supporting the evidence that romance novels prove to be the female equivalent to male-geared pornography). Recent reports published by Nancy Friday, show that the number of female fantasies involving rape far outweigh the number of male fantasies involving rape. What comes as a surprise to many is that in male fantasies, the woman rapes the man and conversely, in female fantasies, the man rapes (Sweet Savagery), the woman! (Christensen 1990:66).

Fridays reports also provided some interesting reasoning for the female fantasies. Her reports find that females fantasize about rape to show that they are not acting in accordance with such sinful actions; to show that sex is being forced upon them. Any other feelings towards the fantasized rape would prove to be undesirable social behaviour and amazingly, the media is not even involved! Actual laboratory experiments (Hawkins, Zimring 1988:103) have shown that when groups of women were shown erotic scenes involving rape, their reactions to the scenes were as or even more stimulating than less violent consensual lovemaking scenes.

This is not to say that all women want to be raped; far from it. This is to say that if women can fantasize about rape but not wish to experience it, then men, too, can fantasize about rape and not wish to commit it. In addition to the many other accusations against pornography, many in society believe that there is definite connection between organized crime and pornography. Although this may be true, the idea is largely over-exaggerated. The reasoning behind this theory is very simple, yet very shallow.

Consider, that pornography is created by organizations and contains sexually explicit material that may be thought to be legally obscene in some areas. To make the connection, these anti-pornography organizations assume that the organizations (hence organized) that produce the legally obscene (hence crime) material, are operating illegally. It is obvious why pornography is attractive to criminals; just as anything that is banned or is made illegal, there is always someone who will pay the high black-market price for it.

Having considered the issues at hand, it can be said that since there is no concrete evidence to support otherwise, pornography in the media does not cause undesirable social behaviour. As mentioned before, sexually explicit movies and magazines do not just arouse, but also satisfy. It is an undisputed fact that feelings of love and happiness cancel out violent feelings (Zillman, Connections Between Sex and Aggression) and to say that pornography endorse violent feelings fails to make sense; if it did, why would men want to be exposed to it.

To suggest that pornography causes men to go over the edge and commit rape is as ludicrous as suggesting that pictures of food cause the hungry to steal more food. It has even been said by some women that rape is the fault of women who dress provocatively; they ask for it. According to this logic, in the event that pornography is banned, then an attempt should be made to force women to cover their skin and wear clothing that completely hides the shapes of their bodies so as not to provoke rape. Absurd. As members of society, we recognize the power of the mass media. We understand that public perception can be easily persuaded.

But it should be clearly understood that pornography in the media alone cannot persuade men to cause harm to women; it cannot cause men to do things that are socially unacceptable. As was mentioned earlier, pornography only causes feelings of excitement and satisfaction and these feelings overpower those feelings of violence. For these reasons, it can be said that until a positive link can be found between pornography in the media and violence against women, it will remain that sexual violence such as rape is the result of sexual frustration, and not of sexual arousal.

The media of todays society plays the peddler to the stereotypes that plague our country. However, the media is not solely to blame. Susan Sontag states in her essay The Image World: Through being photographed, something becomes part of a system of information, fitted into schemes of classification and storage(Sontag 196). Through our own demand as consumers, the use of advertising in television, newspapers, and especially magazines relays to the public an erratic system of stereotypical information.

The system of information relayed through photographic imagery in advertising directly affects the thoughts of society, on how a woman should look and feel. Thus, mixing the stereotypical woman of delicacy, and grandeur with sex and sexuality. The vast amount of stereotypical advertising today is directed at the middle-class, American worker. This specification in advertising is due to the fact that the middle class workers are the main consumers. This idea is represented in the magazine, Newsweek.

Printed on April 3, 2000, Newsweek prints numerous articles of news that are not so focused and in-depth, but still contains valid consistency. The magazine is M/C Phillips, Page 2 truly tailored to the middle class and so is its advertising. In the midst of clutter, from articles of political power, to the rise of the doughnut culture, sits an ad of poise and content. Posted by the Target Corporation, a store tailored to the middle class, the ad displays, a very young, beautiful woman covered shoulders to toe in ivy, holding a rayon handbag.

She is poised, illustrious and elegant, a mirror image of a statue. The backdrop of the image is calm, organized and serene. The ad reads ivy plant $6. 99, rayon crochet bag $14. 99(Newsweek 7). However, the ads imagery at first glance does not fully portray the stereotypes within it. The appearances of stereotypes in this serene ad are hard to find, but are found deep in the text of the image. The apparent purpose of the ad is to sell items such as a handbag, and ivy plants. However, the apparent does not relay the reality. The use of a womans stereotypical sexuality covers up the real with the fantasy.

A stereotype as defined by the Module, Images of Women and Men, is viewed today as a process that distorts reality(Unger & Crawford 219). So in essence this is what the image, or the advertisement has done. Advertising takes the process of photography, and distorts its reality by applying such methods as stereotyping. This creates a desired and common appearance of the perfect, beautiful, fantasy woman. The posture of this image relays a sense of refinement, such M/C Phillips, Page 3 refinement that would be found in the stereotypical elegant, sexy woman.

The placement of her hands gives way to the image of elegance. They are poised, and hold to the endearment of elegance, beautiful but refined. Even when with the sense, or stereotype of the refinement, comes the sexuality of the image. With the refinement comes the notion of sex. To explain this, one must consider that the woman is covered shoulder to toe in ivy. This is the same ivy that is on sale for $6. 99. The ad leads to the fallacy that even the elegant and refined woman can be sold. This ad also carries with it, the stereotype of the fantasy, or the storybook notion.

When looking at the ad, one can see reality redefined. As stated by Susan Sontag, in her essay The Image World, Photographs do more than redefine the stuff of ordinary experience, they add vast amounts of material we never see(Sontag 196). The material in this case, is the application of the fantasy image. From birth, we are confronted with the stereotype of the fantasy woman, relayed to us by fairy tales and myths. Fairy tails and myths that convey the common illusion that all women must be beautiful, and graceful, re-confirming the fantasy stereotype.

The ad in question has also re-confirmed this childhood belief. Covering the young, beautiful woman almost completely in ivy brings her to the fantasy level. This image is almost comical in a sense, but is an erratic M/C Phillips, Page 4 stereotype. The image portrays her as a common fantasy, directly out of a childs storybook, posed in ivy, controlled by a mer plant. This image relays the attitude all women are controllable and must adhere to the fantasy. Strive to be young, skinny and beautiful. In analyzing the ad, another prevailing stereotype can be seen.

The use of gender stereotypes also plagues this ad, more specifically, the stereotype of the desirable, attractive woman. Gender stereotypes can be defined as consensual beliefs about the different characteristics of men and women(Unger & Crawford, 213). The consensual belief portraying the misconception of reality. Or rather, the common views of stereotyping shared by our culture and re-enforced by our media. The classification, or stereotyping of such attributes of the sexy woman(Unger & Crawford, 217), can be clearly seen in the advertisement at hand.

The concepts of a good figure, long hair, and pretty face are all combined in this ad to further enhance this classification. However, no one concept is more clearly used in this ad than the concept of the pretty face. In fact the face is directly focused on. Her hair is also a prevailing factor of stereotyping. The hair gives the woman an exotic, yet refined look. The surrounding borders of the ad are a dark shade of purple and pink, but in the center is a focused illumination of the womans face. The illumination does not focus on the M/C Phillips, Page 5 products for sale, but focuses the effect on the woman.

Directly enhancing her face and upper chest area, focusing the attention on her sexuality and so-called main control factor. Media has successfully continued to suppress women and enhance the stereotypes that women are to adhere to. By applying supposed unconscious effects such as stereotyping and classifying, we as a society have fallen victim to medias ploys in advertising. For years the common belief that a womans only power is her sexuality has been instilled into our society by media propaganda, in advertising. The media is seen as playing to the crowd.

The common notion that sex sells is directly represented in such ploys of advertising and more over in this ad. As Robert L. Heilbroner states, advertising is not only a bearer of messages; it is the message(Heilbroner 99). The message that advertising carries is the underlying faction of stereotypes. The stereotypical ploys that will attract the consumer to the product, the selling feature. In this ad, the woman and her fantasy image are not only selling common stereotypes but selling the very woman herself. Placing the woman in the ivy makes the statement that woman is the ivy. She is the very object that is for sale.

The ad is also, selling the very ploys that have been conflicting with the struggle to pursue equality and not the products stated to be for sale. M/C Phillips, Page 6 We as a society will never be equal unless, we strive to rid the propaganda at hand. Media and advertising are vessel of all ruin, in the advancement for a stereotype free image of a woman. What good is it for a woman to declare herself an individual, if she is continuously plagued with the common stereotypes of classification and sex? To truly be equal, we must strive to see the degradation that all stereotypes in media and advertising bring upon our society.

The mass media can be defined as the means of communication that reach large numbers of people in a short time, such as television, newspapers, magazines, radio and the internet. In terms of reach, mass media can easily be accessible to people internationally and across continents. Throughout the 20th Century, the arrival of mass media was driven by technology that allowed the massive duplication of material at a low cost. Physical duplication technologies such as printing, record pressing and film duplication allowed the duplication of books, newspapers and movies at low prices to huge audiences.

Television and radio allowed the electronic duplication of content for the first time. Mass media had the economics of linear replication: a single work could make money proportional to the number of copies sold, and as volumes went up, units costs went down, increasing profit margins further. The purpose of the mass media is debatible; Some see its purpose is to inform or select information relevant to its large audience. Others see it having a hypoderitic needle effect. In brief, it is the idea that the makers of media messages can get up to do whatever they want us to do.

This last view has caused concern since the Orson Welles & The Mercury Theatre broadcast of War of the Worlds on October 30th 1939. He made an adaption of the book, except it was made like a live news broadcast of a Martian invasion. People packed the roads, hid in cellars, loaded guns, even wrapped their heads in wet towels as protection from Martian poison gas, in an attempt to defend themselves against aliens. In the future, it seems media convergence will become more apparent.

Already we have radio shows giving extra information and track listings through their website, TV news stations with their own broadband information services and I feel this is just the beginning. We will not have a media brand using one outlet any more, we are in a world where media conglomerates control too much of the media to avoid this. Companies like News Corporation, Viacom and AOL Time Warner own so much of it that not only will more of it become apparent, but also brands that have only one outlet will struggle greatly. This issue of globalization is still contentious.

For the western world, it poses a great threat as it means our information is from the one country. It has the potential to destroy cultures internationally, plus with the US being the only world super power, no one can compete or challenge their views and beliefs. Many countries may stop creating their own media for the public and simply but American media. The US can easily afford to do so, as their outlets will have made enough profit in the motherland. This means people will not fully have their native freedom of speech or viewpoints.

Global media conglomerates can often have a progressive impact on culture, especially when they enter countries that had tightly controlled corrupt media systems (as in much of Latin America) or nations that had significant state censorship over media (as in parts of Asia). The global commercial media system is uncompromising in that it will not respect tradition, custom, or balance, if it stands in the way of profits. A problem is becoming more apparent is that, as Major American companies merge together, minority voices in society will quickly lose their voice in the public domain.

In this country we have the BBC Asian Network, the communist newspaper Morning Star which give outlets to minorities but with globalisation and more specifically Americanisation, their views and beliefs will easily be erased from the public, purely if the media sees no substantial profit in them, rather than looking at ethics and freedom of expression. Now that the British media is monitored by the one body, Ofcom, traditional worries about taste, decency, fairness etc are not being abandoned.

However, there is a growing concern that the media is not giving us the full picture of news and information around us. The notion that Osama Bin Laden was sending coded messages in his video messages to terrorists does seem a bit far fetched, yet expressed journalists and reporters went along with the US Administration without question. Also in the early 1992 where Bill Clinton ran for leader of the Democratic Party in the US, one of his rivals Senator Robert Kerrey of Nebraska was literally snubbed by the media during the campaign.

As the opinion polls came in, Kerrey was found to be third in the running, yet the media was hardly giving him enough airtime to put his views across. The election trail continued and the other candidate got more exposure, Kerrey was soon out of the running altogether. The views in the media are not a fair representation of the cultural diversity around us. With most of the focus on white British people, those from other minority groups and with special needs are not given enough time in the media.

However, within the last ten years changes have been made to improve this situation as the BBC created the Asian Network, also last February the BBC unveiled quotas to boost the number of disabled people in their shows. Then again, the BBC itself is a public-funded, non commercial broadcaster which needs to change with the publics interest. If changes like these continue for the other TV and media networks, not only will it create better integration in our society, but would counter the hypodermic needle effect the media can easily put in place.

Rupert Murdoch is a media entrepreneur who owns and has shares in the largest media conglomerate, News Corporation worth $12. 5 billion. His holdings include: FOX Networks, BSkyB, 20th Century Fox, New York Post, HarperCollins Publishers, Regan Books and sports teams. His empire covers four continents and reaches two in every three people worldwide. Though the concern as to his power potential is that with so many media outlets to utilize, he can put his views across them without any room or regard for other peoples view, which undermines the principle of democracy.

On the upside, Rupert Murdoch has forever changed the way the media works. He brought tabloid papers to the UK, colour newspapers and has manage to create ties between the media and government. He is the most powerful political media influence in the world; he has frequently been courted by politicians, especially current and past British and Australian Prime Ministers, who try to persuade him to run favourable coverage. He is however, accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests.

In my view, Rupert Murdoch is threat to the media and democracy around the world itself. He has an overwhelming desire to own more and more of the worlds media, without compliancy. Furthermore, with the Federal Communications Committee deregulating their policies, it is only allowing Murdoch more room to flex his muscles. During the September 11th attacks in the United States I found myself watching news coverage on the Fox News Channel which Sky Digital, only recently carried.

I noticed an American bias in its coverage but it only became more apparent during the War on Terror. On every single show, in the top left hand corner, the American flag waves constantly for 24 hours a day which is unusual, considering Rupert Murdoch attacked the BBC for spending too much money on American programming. He buys a station in America and pretends its pro-America, has it tell us Americans that theyre best because that sells, plays countries against each other because it breeds loyalty.

Then, he buys a station somewhere else like here in Britain, has that station tell them they are the best because that sells and then starts playing them against whichever country will serve his purpose at the moment. If he determines anti-American talk will sell to Britons, he starts attacking the very country his FOX News claims to speak for. Rupert Murdoch is only working to help himself, his assets and his security. He is assaulting those that try to free speech, the BBC being a prime example but he has been doing this across the globe. He simply uses any means possible to get more money.

In 1985 he became a US citizen in order to satisfy current legislation that only American citizens could own US television stations and yet also managed to have himself defined as an Australian citizen in order to retain his ownership of Australian media outlets. During the build up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialised in favour of the war. The fear is that, if Murdoch continues to get richer and richer, he could eventually buy up the entire worlds media and centrally control all the ideas and views released which would slowly kill off democracy and stop people thinking for themselves.

Over the past century, mass media has evolved from informational for the public to a monopolistic situation where the public has lost its say in what is aired. Back in early 1900s, newspapers had entertainment, news, information, and public views which in turn earned the publics interest. As interest grew, of course the companies did as well. At the turn of the century, the U. S. labor movement published hundreds of newspapers in dozens of languages, and regional dailies issued by working-class political organizations and mutual aid societies to national union weeklies and monthlies (McChesney 151).

These newspapers practiced a journalism very different from that of the capitalist newspapers, which were produced and sold as commodities, which contended, were poisoning the minds of the public. The old papers gave information, news, and help, and had little for entertainment. This paper will investigate the changes in the media, focusing on newspapers, magazines, and television, and the effects upon public perspective it has had. In the decades that followed the emergence of radio broadcasting in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, much of the scholarship on the origins of the U. S. oadcasting setup was a fortunate success (McChesney 222).

It is assumed that the United States had adopted the best broadcast system imaginable and that the laws that had permitted and encouraged the development of a regulated commercial system had been products of well-intentioned public servants (McChesney 222). Sometimes the U. S. broadcasting system was characterized as being a result of a painstaking study and debate of a variety of alternatives. At other times, the notion that debate or study had even been necessary was dismissed categorically, as the existing system was the sole conceivable system appropriate for U. S. democracy (McChesney 223).

In either case this perspective, which had been encouraged strongly by the commercial broadcasting industry, remained prominent in mass communication circles well into the 1970s, thus the real emergence of media conformity. Conformity of the media means that less and less companies exist today and the major corporations have bought out all the smaller ones. What people watch, see, read, and even talk about has been effected by the media. With the emergence of these changes we are now more interested in entertainment. This will be explained later.

Effects and Changes in Mass Media A description of mass media in the United States can help to explain much of why they do what they do. There are two categories of media defined as follows: print (newspapers, magazines, etc); and electronic which is the radio, television, movies, and the internet. These media carry messages quickly to a wide range of audiences (Heibert 4-5). With this technology media has conformed slowly over time, and less companies produced because they have either been bought out or fell off the charts as these numbers show (Heibert 4-5).

At the end of the twentieth century, about 1,550 daily newspapers were published, which is down from about 2,600 at their peak earlier in the century (Heibert 5). Some questions can be brought to light such as, do the media make things happen, or do they merely report what has happened? Do they make us act? Do they influence peoples opinions? Obviously this cannot be answered with undeniable certainty, but one can argue. In the 1950s, television was still primarily a limited adult activity. Most peoples values had already been shaped by other forces – namely, family, religion, teachers, and print media (Heibert 7).

By the end of the twentieth century, social scientists were ready to assign a more direct and powerful impact to television (Heibert 7-8). The most important has been the work of George Gerbner, whose cultivation analysis is based on theory that television, as a dominant medium, has a cumulative effect, ultimately creating the culture in which we live (Gerbner 23). Today many experts say it is television – not parents, teachers, or religious leaders – that establishes the values of young children.

Many scientific studies have confirmed that for the news and information we need about ourselves, our communities, and our world, we now turn more often to mass media, especially television, than to our families, friends, or neighbors (Bagdikian 23). At the beginning of the twentieth century, the average American spent a few minutes each day reading a daily newspaper, a few minutes more reading magazines, maybe less than an hour reading a book – and no time at all watching movies or television, listening to radio or recordings, or surfing the World Wide Web, none of which existed as a public medium.

By the end of the twentieth century, Americans spend more than half their leisure time – activities other than eating, sleeping, or working – on mass media, and the majority of that time is spent watching television. Today the numbers are 3,400 hours a year on media (such as TV, computers, etc), or about 40% of our total time, more than we spent time sleeping (2, 900 hours, 33%) or working (2000 hours, 23%), or all he other things people do (only 460 hours, 5 %) (Heibert 9). Conformity To understand he changing media at the end of the twentieth century, it is important to analyze the anatomy of the big bang.

The best place to start is with history. America was expected to be a diverse society, in terms of perspectives, and the mass media were supposed to represent and ensure that diversity. The fact is that by the end of the twentieth century the mass media had become less diverse, less competitive, and more standardized despite more television channels to watch, more radio stations to listen to, and more printed material to read (McChesney 223). Media critic Richard Harwood points out that the Golden Age for diversity in American press was the period from 1880 to 1930.

During that time, some 2,600 dailies were published, and every major city had a half-dozen or more competing papers. By the end of the twentieth century, only a handful of cities had competing dailies, and few independently owned newspapers remained (Harwood 143). Nearly all daily papers in the U. S. had become politically independent with bland or conformist political convictions, or none at all. The ethnic press had declined to 236 papers and lost much of its distinctiveness, Harwood writes, and the shrinking black press been enfeebled (Harwood 143). So, while newspapers are more profitable than ever today, they also are more efficient.

They can operate with fewer employees, meaning that even within the newsroom, fewer voices are being heard. According to a study by the Freedom Forum, the newsroom labor force of 53, 700 in the mid-1990s was expected to decline to 50, 000 by the year 2001 (Heibert 10). This is due to the fact that major publishers have bought the independent companies and only publish and limit what is sent out today. Radio and television have never been nonconformist, extremist, or highly partisan. They have always broadcast middle-of-the-road programming that would reach the largest possible audience.

The Fairness Doctrine, which mandated that broadcasting gives all sides equal time and opportunity, in fact discourages stations from taking a strong stand on issues(Bagdikan 25). Corporate Ownership and Interesting Numbers Patterns of ownership have changed as well. Daily and weekly newspapers once were locally and family owned businesses. Of the 1,550 or so daily newspapers published in America today, more than three-fourths are owned by newspaper groups or larger corporations. Somewhere around 145 account for more than four-fifths of the total circulation of the U. S. dailies (Heibert 11).

All this is the same for book and magazine publishing companies. Most of the publishing companies headquarters are in New York and there exists only several major companies across the country (Heibert 11). Radio and television were also small and locally owned businesses, mandated as such by Federal Communication Commission regulations that limited ownership to seven AM, seven FM, and seven TV stations. The other rule was that no owner could operate more than one in any given listening area. With deregulation happening in the Reagan administration, limitations on ownership were relaxed.

When deregulation completed with the overhaul of the communications law in 1996 – states: including no limits at all on the number of radio stations an individual or corporation can own- mergers began on the dime (Heibert 11). Within a few months the Fox network, with 22 TV stations, was the larger than ABC, CBS, and NBC, and its stations reached around 40 percent of American homes, being located in 11 of the top 12 markets. By 1996, writes McChesney, only about 50 firms controlled the majority of the worlds mass media, nine of those 50 – Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Murdochs News Corp.

TCI, General Electric (NBC), Sony, and Seagram- held the dominant share. Right behind them were Comcast, Westinghouse (CBS), New York Times, Hearst, and Gannett (Bagdkian 25, McChesney 227). Also, fourteen out of fifteen of the worlds largest media corporations list the U. S. as their headquaters (Baran 522). Effects on the Public Whether the issue is online hate groups, televised violence, the absence of minority characters in prime-time television programming, or a decline in the quality of political discourse, the topic of the effects of mass communication has been hotly debated for a long time.

An important term to understand is selective exposure. This is the process by which people expose themselves to or attend to only those messages consistent with their preexisting attitudes and beliefs (Baran 424). This is where our public perspective has been mostly effected. The major corporations know about this selective exposure and have used that to their advantage (Baran 424). Taking a look at the numbers in the previous paragraph, it is clear that there exists fewer companies related to the media that ever today. With that, it is also true that what the people see and hear is what the corporations want them to see.

In a country of free enterprise, these corporations air what will give them high ratings, thus, in turn, more profit (Bagdkian 25). So, since we only see what they air, we are limited to the information that we do not have. We no longer talk about the news. Instead we talk about NYPD Blue, or any other sitcom, or what interests us. Another interesting fact is that we rarely here much about politics these days. This is because entertainment has become more important because it creates revenue (Baran 522). Conclusion Over the course of many years, it is astonishing to read the numbers as conformity has taken over rather than diversity.

Its amazing to look at the evolution of mass media over past century. It has changed the country and world in such a manor thats hard to describe. Within the United States, media changed the way people looked at each aspect of life. They no longer read newspapers for news, or watched TV for information; they watched out of curiosity and for entertainment. Competing companies had to make the same sort of shows that the leading companies were airing, thus the conformity of media. Whatever made them money is what mattered. Our loss of perspective as a people has happened because of this media frenzy.

We no longer turn to our neighbors or family members for information (Bagdkian 24). We listen to the people on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers. With the economic imbalance the world has today, there is no telling what might happen in the future with the mass media. At the current rate it is going, one massive company will eventually own everything and limit everything an individual may hear, read, or watch on any network. Yet, these conclusions cannot be proved by this paper, it is only what may happen in the future and there may be no real solution either, but that is also just an inclanation.

From the moment she stepped foot outside, Princess Diana of Whales had camera lenses and microphones pushed in her face. She was constantly pursued and for this reason she sometimes had to hide or disguise herself in order to avoid the unyielding persistence and constant harassment of the press. Eugene Robinson, a journalist in England said, “For the tabloids, day in and day out, no story is bigger than the royal family. All the tabloids employ royal-watching reporters, some of whom have become celebrities in their own right.

The story of Princess Diana of Whales was the biggest story of all. Sabjan, 1998) Princess Diana could not even Stay out of the public eye when she was behind the walls of the royal estate. The press broke the story of her failing marriage, her intercepted phone conversation with a male friend, and finally her new relationship. The Princess often complained about the coverage, saying, “Any sane person would have left (Britain) long ago. ” (Sabjan, 1998) But with an abundant amount of freelance photographers stalking her every move upon her leaving Kensington Palace, that idea proved impossible.

Pushed almost to the edge by constant press harassment, Princess Diana was ready to consider making an attempt to avoid the public altogether. During her last interview, Princess Diana told writer Richard Kay that she was “Going to complete her obligations to her charities and then completely withdraw from her formal public life. ” (Sabjan, 1998) The public had forced itself into the life of a celebrity and caused the pressure from the media to become overwhelming. Princess Diana did stay in England, however, and used the incredible amounts of Media attention to her advantage.

Princess Diana had numerous charities and good causes that were important to her so she used the press to promote them, all the while helping to shape her own image. Unfortunately, in the case of Princess Diana, the press and their use of aggressive tactics resulted in a tragedy. Princess Diana and her friend Dodi Al-Fayed had just left the Ritz Hotel in Paris, France, late Saturday night, August 30, 1997. Sending a regular chauffeur and limousine ahead as a decoy, Princess Diana and Al-Fayed left out of a different hotel entrance and entered a Mercedes S-280 driven by Henri Paul. Some photographer’s saw

This, and began to follow the Mercedes on motorcycles and cars. Henri Paul tried to lose the photographers as he increased the car’s speed, but the photographers continued to follow, chasing the car through the streets. Eyewitnesses saw the motorcycles swarming the Mercedes as it entered a tunnel traveling over 60 miles per hour. The speed limit in the tunnel was 30 miles per hour. Inside the tunnel, the Mercedes hit a curb, lost control, and slammed into a concrete barrier post, then flipped several times. Do dial-Fayed and driver Henri Paul was killed at the scene of the accident.

Princess Diana was brought to a hospital where doctors had to open her chest to fix a wound to a major blood vessel. Princess Diana’s heart was directly massaged for 2 hours, but the doctors were unsuccessful in saving her life. Princess Diana was pronounced dead at the hospital 4 hours after the accident. (Sabjan, 1998)Soon after their deaths, seven of the photographers were arrested, declared by police as manslaughter suspects because they were The reason the car was speeding in the first place. The Princess’ death had a large impact on the United States.

She was a public figure that others could model their lives after and she was involved in several charities in the United States. The First Amendment tithe United States Constitution grants the press immunity, but several arguments have risen for some type of further regulation. The press has an extensive history that must be observed and understood for an accurate analysis of the problems that face the press today. When the United States Constitution was written in 1787, primary authors James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had to” sell” it to the American people. The Constitution articles were written in newspapers throughout the country.

These articles are now collectively known as The Federalist Papers. Without these articles, it is doubtful that the experiment known as The United States would have ever happened. Seeing the power of the press, the founding fathers guaranteed its complete freedom on the first Amendment to the Constitution. (Schwartz, 1992, p. 174) The Freedom of the press was designed to act as another independent outside check system. A check on the Executive, Legislature, or Judiciary branch of the government. (Wilson, 1999) Along with this responsibility, the freedom of the press clause was designed to lead to an informed populace.

As Thomas Jefferson said,” The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right, and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. ” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 18) “The Press” is an extremely broad term and includes all systems that make information available to the public: newspapers, television, radio, magazines, books, lectures, movies, art, dance, telephone, cassettes, CDs, video discs, electronic bulletin boards, computer networks, billboards, and so on.

It is generally referred to as “The Press” because the founding fathers, which wrote the freedom of the press into the Constitution, knew only of the printing press, at that times the most popular form of mass communication. Today, because of it’s variety, it is known as “The media. ” “The media” would continue to present the public with information that influenced our society in several diverse ways. One of the most influential books of the 1800s was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Published in 1852, Stowe portrayed African American slaves as human beings, rather than animals with petty uses, and their white owner, Simon Legree, as the novel’s villain. The book became extremely successful, selling over 300,000 copies in its first year. (Levy, 1999, p. 91) Of these 300,000, a countless number we repurchased in the South with the sole purpose of burning it. However, this book swayed popular opinion in the North towards the abolition of slavery. Without Uncle Tom’s Cabin, anti- slavery might never have been a major cause of the Civil War (Levy, 1999, p. )

In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote a book entitled The Jungle. Using groundbreaking techniques in investigative reporting, Sinclair exposed to the public the deplorable conditions at a Chicago meat packing industry. Sinclair worked undercover, then wrote about the conditions he observed in his book. The Jungle changed the way food products were handled in the United States, when in response to the book, the government founded the Food and Drug Administration to prevent further widespread food handling abuse.

McWilliams, 1998) In the late 1930s, American’s were gently prodded into taking sides in World War II by what they heard on the radio. From Germany, American’s heard the incoherent sounds of a ranting lunatic followed by masses lock-stepping and shouting,”Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! ” From England however, American’s heard the warm, gentle, sometimes humorous voice of Winston Churchill. Surely it would be okay to lend this nice man some boats and lease him a few airplanes. And so, lend-lease was born, and the United States was no longer neutral. (Levy, 1999, p. 4)

The free press was responsible for major changes in America’s society. From the American Revolution, to the civil war, to the World Wars, the Press of America has shaped the way the public views and interprets certain events. It is important for Journalists to remember however, that they are responsible for informing the public in a certain fashion. Article IV of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) Statement of Principals, entitled “Truth and Accuracy,” states that “Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Iggers, 1998, p. 39)

In order for the press to maintain “Good Faith” with the reader, they must follow certain guidelines or ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists gathered in 1996 to revise their previous codes, established in 1926. The society focused on four primary aspects of newsgathering and reporting. The first being seeking and reporting the truth. (Iggers, 1998, p. 40) According to the Society, Journalists should take many steps in assuring themselves that the information they have gathered is truthful and accurate.

In order to do so, the Society suggests that the reporting journalists should test the accuracy of their information. Journalists should always seek out the subjects of their reporting and give them the opportunity to respond to the allegations that are being brought up against them, while identifying their sources, which should be checked thoroughly for reliability, and never plagiarized. By following these guidelines, the harm induced on those being reported is minimized, which is the Society’s next aspect in their code of ethics. (Iggers, 1998, p. 2)

To inimize the harm caused to those being reported, journalists are simply reminded to be sensitive when seeking interviews or photos of people affected by tragedy or grief, realizing that private people have a right to control certain amounts of information regarding them. (Iggers, 1998, p. 42) In doing so, journalists become more respected by the public, and become accountable for their reports, the third aspect of the Society’s code. The Society states that in order for a journalist to be accountable for their reporting, they must admit any to any mistakes they may have made, and attempt to correct them immediately.

Journalists should clarify their coverage and invite the public to discuss and voice any grievances against the news media that they may have, as well as properly exposing unethical practices of fellow journalists and the news media. (Iggers, 1998, p. 43) In doing this, journalists will be working independently, the Society’s final rule. Journalists must remain free of associations that could damage their own personal credibility, which may involve accepting gifts, favors or concealed fees in exchange for reporting something your that benefits their source, contradicting the interests of the public.

Iggers, 1998, p. 38-47) Journalists have these guidelines to help them concentrate their efforts to reporting honestly and accurately. There are some journalists however, that choose not to follow such guidelines. That is why there are limitations on how journalists obtain their information, and how that information is reported. The First Amendment does not list any specific exceptions, but it does not protect all types of speech and press. The US government can limit the freedom of the press when it comes to the invasion of one’s privacy.

Privacy in a tort concept embraces four branches of protected interests: protection from unreasonable intrusion upon one’s seclusion, from appropriation of one’s name or likeness, from unreasonable publicity given to one’s private life, and from publicity which unreasonably places one in a false light before the public. (Find Law Constitution, 1998) The Sedition Act of 1798 made criminal the malicious writings which defamed, brought into contempt of disrepute, or excited the hatred of the people against the Government, the President, or the Congress, or which stirred people to edition. FindLaw Constitution, 1998)

The press can be sued for libel if the reported material involves those who are not public figures or public officials that do not have the burden of proving that the publication was done with a reckless disregard of the truth. Libel occurs when a statement that is false about an identifiable person is published to a third party, causing injury to the subject’s reputation. (Schwartz, 1991, p. 59) Through million dollar damage settlements, high-profile lawsuits and fraud, the credibility of the press is continually being questioned.

Although the First Amendment immunizes the press against liability to public figures for most damages resulting from unfavorable coverage, a majority of the population believes this freedom has impelled the press to go to far in obtaining news. The Press greatly affects many people in different negative ways. Possibly the most often and exclusively covered are those involved in mainstream politics, especially when the members of the congress or other important positions in the government do something that contradicts what is acceptable in society today.

One of the most prominent events in this nation’s political history occurred recently when current President Bill Clinton was romantically involved with a woman other than his wife. In1995, Monica Lewinsky, a recent graduate of Lewis and Clark College in Portland, OR, began an internship at the White House in Washington, D. C. She quickly became close acquaintances with the President, as she transferred to a job in which she worked very closely to him. (Isikof, 1998) Linda Tripp, a friend of Monica Lewinsky’s, taped several phone conversations that she had with Ms. Lewinsky in which Ms. Lewinsky talked about giving oral sex to the President in a private study in the oval office.

These tapes were then turned over to Kenneth Starr. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr led the Whitewater investigation, which were financial situations that Bill Clinton and his wife Hilary were involved in previous to Clinton’s first term as President, when he was the Governor of Arkansas. (Isikof, 1998) Starr wrote and sent a 445-page report on President Clinton and his acts of perjury to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. , 1998.

Clinton was accused of lying under oath regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and impeding justice when he supposedly told Monica to lie about their relationship. The historic report, which was released to the American public, outlined 11 possible grounds for impeachment and contained explicit descriptions of Clinton’s sexual encounters with MonicaLewinsky. (isikof, 1998) For months the evening news was dominated by in depth discussion focusing directly on the President and his physical relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The Starr report was available to anyone in America over the Internet.

Summaries were printed in nearly all newspapers and magazines, and continued discussion swarmed everywhere on television and radio programs. Despite the fact that Clinton was accused of committing perjury, the American public remained on his side. 64%2 of Americans polled said they wanted Bill Clinton to remain in office. Even after all of the negative publicity that the President had received, the American public was still behind him, and it was not because the American public believed that the President was nnocent of the charges.

Seventy nine percent of those polled believed he was guilty of perjury. However, 68% of those polled believed that Clinton was performing his duties as President extremely well, and that the press was overly invading his personal life, which the press is often accused of. (Holland, 1998) The press has been accused of having a profoundly negative impact on the lives of public figures. In the last 30 years, journalism has changed from reporting only what was of importance to the public, to focusing on the private events of public figure’s lives.

As Jeremy Iggers, author of Good News, Bad News said it, “Network television news has become a world of UFOs, psychics, daydreams, miracle cures, cuddly animals, O. J. Simpson1, Jon Benet Ramsey, and from time to time, at least for a few minutes, actual news. ” (Iggers, 1998, p. 114) It is extremely easy to find a case in which the press held the right to privacy in disregard. John F. Kennedy Jr. was in the spotlight of the press his entire life, following in his father’s footsteps. Millions around the world followed he life.

He became a prominent prosecutor in New York, then started a new political and socially orientated magazine entitled “George. ” Kennedy Jr. married Carolyn Bessette in 1996, and life was going well for him. Then in 1999, tragedy struck. On July 16, 1999, Kennedy Jr. , his wife Carolyn, and her sister were flying over the coast of Massachusetts, when their plane crashed into Martha’s Vineyard. All three were killed, and their ashes were spread not far from where the plane went down. (Kennedy, 2000) Within minutes of the news breaking that John Kennedy Jr. ‘s plane had disappeared, the media went into overdrive.

Within hours, major networks and 24-hour cable news channels had top anchors in place, keeping up a steady drumbeat of coverage, pounding on the same few facts amid great speculation, historical reminiscences, and anecdotes. Tom Rosenstiel,director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism said that, “In 12 hours of coverage, there were only about 10 minutes’ worth of actual facts. ” Stephen Lacy, acting director of Michigan State University’s School of Journalism in East Lansing said through the coverage of the Kennedy tragedy, he saw, “a bigger disconnect between the press and the public.

It was a bit of overkill, especially on television. ” He went on to say that “The media have not quite realized that overplaying does not help their credibility, but continues to show examples of the news industry exploiting a tragedy in a push to stem a 20-year slide in ratings, readers, and credibility. ” Not only is the press hurting the public figures by this kind of reporting, it is also affecting the public. When asked whether or not the Press had too much freedom in the United States today, 53% of those polled said yes. This percentage is up from 37% in 1997.Sabjan, 1999)

Paul McMasters of the First Amendment Center attributes the shift solely on the deeper dissatisfaction that the public feels towards  the media. He believes that the public feels a sense of being overwhelmed in major stories (like the Kennedy crash) by speculation and the pervasiveness of news outlets. (Kennedy, 1999) The clash between the public and the press goes beyond insensitive reporting. The biggest question that faces the Press in the 90s, is the ongoing confusion regarding what the press’ actual motives in reporting the news are.

Many believe that is the demand for high ratings on television or newspaper that leads journalists down the wrong path towards tabloid journalism, instead of reporting truthful, accurate and important information. Walter Cronkite, a broadcast journalist of the 60s and 70s, known for his coverage of the first man to walk on the moon, and the death of President John F. Kennedy said in 1998, “instead of these TV magazine programs offering tough documentaries and background on the issues that affect all of us, they’re making them into television copies of ‘photoplay’ magazine.

Cronkite goes on to say that “News executives know better, but are helpless when top management demands an increase in ratings for profit protection. (Levy, 1999, p. 61-63) The motives behind newsgathering could be considered by many to be contrary to what their responsibilities are. Changes in the autonomy3 and accountability of journalists in the past few years has resulted in questioning whether journalists are more interested in reporting what is important and necessary for public information, or personal gain in their field. The classic example of this is the story of Janet Cooke.

Janet Cooke was a well-respected journalist who worked for the Washington Post in the late 70s to 1981. In 1981, Cooke wrote a gripping story entitled, “Jimmy’s World. ” “Jimmy” was an eight-year-old African American boy, who had become addicted to heroin due to the constant harassment and abuse from his mother’s live-in boyfriend. Her story was so well appreciated that it won the Pulitzer Prize in 1981. Shortly afterwards however,” Jimmy” was revealed as a falsity. Never was there a Jimmy, as Cooke later admitted to completely making up the story.

Her Pulitzer was taken away, and Janet Cooke was forced to resign from journalism. Many refer to her as the new model journalist. Now, Not only are their journalists lying about their information and their stories, but top media executive decisions are also affecting whether or not the public receives information that is relevant. With several corporation mergers and consolidations, clamping down on costs and budgets, regardless of the effect on the news coverage, can make a company a more attractive take over target, an advantage to major shareholders in that corporation.

Top executives in media operations often own even larger amounts of stock options, resulting in more income than their salary. Because of this, they have a personal interest in their companies’ profit. The more viewers they have, and the more the can squeeze out of their employees, the richer they will be in the end. (Levy, 1999, p. 70)This results in focusing on getting ratings rather than truthfulness and importance. Television programs such as American Journal and Hard Copy are filled with stories being covered simply for ratings.

In the last twenty years, similar to television and magazines that have strayed toward reporting what will get ratings rather than good solid news, journalists have done the same. The goals of more and more journalists have gone from reporting solid and useful material to whatever will make them the most money. AndrewKohut, director of the Pen Research Center for People and the Press says, “The public feels that journalists are too aggressive in the way they play their watchdog role, and are doing it not because they are seeking the truth, but to advance their careers.

Whether or not this is the case, the public cannot deny the fact that without the free press, it would be impossible to retain an informed populace. That is why many believe the press should be free to report anything truthful, honest and accurate. Throughout United States history, the Supreme Court has maintained and guaranteed the right to a free press. One of the most widely known cases in which this right is secured is in the case of New York Times Co. v. United States. The Pentagon Papers were top-secret information.

The Papers were a study that detailed government deceptions about United States policy relating to the Vietnam War. Daniel Ellsberg, one of the analysts who helped write and publish the study in 1971, revealed the Papers to the New York Times. These revealed that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which led to increased U. S. military involvement in Vietnam, had been formulated months before the corresponding incident took place, and that President Lyndon Johnson had been committing infantry to Vietnam while telling the nation that he had no long-range plans for the war.

The U. S. government took the New York Times to court on basis publishing material that challenged national security. However, the Supreme Court agreed that stopping the publication violated First Amendment protections. Justice Hugo L. Black commented on the case saying, “I believe that every moment’s continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. In the 1992 case of Food Lion v. American Broadcasting Channel Co.

ABC), two producers from the ABC news magazine show called “Prime Time Live” went under cover and started working at Food Lion grocery stores. The two ABC reporters used false resumes to get jobs at a Food Lion store in North and South Carolina, then secretly videotaped employees for a story on food-handling practices that accused the grocery chain of selling rat-gnawed cheese and rotting meat. The report alleged that Food Lion employees ground out-of-date beef along with new beef, bleached rank meat to remove its odor and redatedproducts not sold before their expiration date.

In 1992, the jury that found ABC guilty of fraud under a state law awarded the supermarket chain $5. 5 million in punitive damages, but that was cut to $315,000 by a federal judge. (Associated Press, 1999) This past year, the charges were reversed, and ABC was found not guilty of the charges brought against them. ABC intended to benefit the consuming public by letting it know about Food Lion’s food handling practices,” said the opinion by Judge M. Blane Michael. “And Moreover, ABC was not competing with Food Lion, as it did not have any actual or potential business relationship with the grocery chain.

The appeals panel affirmed the jury finding that the two ABC employees who worked for Food Lion–Lynne Dale and Susan Barnett — breached their duty of loyalty to Food Lion and committed trespass. It upheld nominal damages of $1 each against them. (Associated Press, 1999) “This is a victory for the American tradition of investigative journalism. In the end, after Food Lion spent millions of dollars on legal fees and public relations offensives, the court ordered ABC News to pay only $2 in damages,” said David Westin, ABC News president.

Associated Press, 1999) In the argument of the press over emphasizing coverage of public figures, several things must come into consideration. First and foremost, the press has the right to publish personal information about a public figure. As Supreme Court Justice Douglas said, “Such privacy as a person normally has ceases when his life has ceased to be private. ” (Leahy, 1991, p. 31) The First Amendment was intended for full freedom of expression for the press. For “a right to engage in rasping, corrosive, and offensive discussion on all topics of public interest. ” (Levy, 1999, p. )

Many believe that the blame for the change in journalism from honest to tabloid journalism can be placed squarely on the public. The tabloid television shows have always done well in daytime ratings, as the public most often views television shows that focus on celebrities involving, crimes, or daily life. Joe Saltzman, a columnist for USA today, in an article to the public said: “This is the way you want it. When you stop embracing celebrity journalism, when it is no longer profitable to publish pictures of every facet of a celebrities’ daily life, then all of this will end.

And all media will look for something else that you want. To complain about the way things are, is simply to add more hypocrisy to the stench already surrounding us. ” (Hamill, 1998, p. 175) In order for the media and the public to coexist on better terms, certain things must occur. Journalists must try to follow codes of ethics that have been implied on them. By personally following the ethics that the American Society of Newspaper Editors have written, the public will once again begin to trust the press as truth seeking and honest.

Journalists must also remain focused on the important issues that effect the American people. Issues involving political issues and votes in congress, not just what a political figure did on the weekend. Journalists should shy away from reporting consensual crimes. Consensual crimes corrupt our free press. Because committing a consensual crime is breaking the law, and since breaking the law is news, reporters are often sent out looking for drug busts, hookers, or stories on who is sleeping with whom and whether or not they’re married to someone else.

As George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel prize for literature commented, “You’d think America was populated solely by naked women and cinema stars. “(McWilliams, 1999) The press not only cheapens itself by playing tattletale and reporting the consensual exploits of others; it also” eats it’s young” by reporting on the consensual activities of its own. An example of this involves an attractive female “reporter” who invited Larry King up to her hotel room, which happened to have a barrage of hidden cameras.

Time went on and on, Mr. King did not make a single improper move. But, as dull and unimportant as it was, they aired the tape anyway. (McWilliams, 1999) News like this benefits no one, and should have no place in journalism. The public, just like the press, has to adapt and change as well if the press is expected to change the way they report information, and what kind of information they report. The public can no longer maintain such a high appreciation for obtaining information regarding the personal lives of those with very public lives.

If this occurs, horrible tragedies like the death of Princess Diana could possibly be avoided in the future. The press will always report events that occur in the lives of public figures, but if the public as a whole loses its insatiable curiosity regarding these public figures, the press will begin to look elsewhere for stories that hold the public’s interest. Over the course of the 20th century the Supreme Court has breathed life into the text of the First Amendment by upholding the right of the press to pursue its mission, no matter how detestable that might seem to those in power.

The courts have imposed some limits on liberty, and some questions remain as to how far this liberty will extend to new media and to some of the more aggressive efforts employed by journalists to obtain the news. Still, as Justice Stewart wrote in the Pentagon Papers case, “without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened people. ” The U. S. Supreme Court has yet to address many of the important issues raised by surreptitious newsgathering. And the issue at hand may be much larger than the pure legality of journalistic methods and behavior.

It was fashionable to be fat throughout most of history. Obesity was attractive because it was considered to be a sign of wealth. Those who could obtain enough food to keep themselves and their family well fed were people with money. In the past century, however, food has been abundant in most of the developed nations, and thinness has become fashionable. Eating disorders have increased significantly over the past thirty years. The two most common eating disorders include anorexia and bulimia nervosa.

Anorexia nervosa is a disease in which women become very self-conscious about their weight and have an intense fear of becoming fat. They go to such extremes as starving themselves in order to keep thin, and some use additional methods such as vomiting, taking excessive amounts of laxatives, or exercising profusely. Bulimia nervosa on the other hand is an eating disorder in which the patient eats large amounts of food in a short period of time, also known as binge eating. Another symptom of bulimia is ridding oneself of food through vomiting, using laxatives, or over-exercising, commonly known as purging.

Women with anorexia nervosa or bulimia often experience fatigue and decreased energy, headaches, personality changes, and abdominal pain. If an eating disorder is left untreated, it can lead to serious health damage, even death. These eating disorders are usually brought on because a girl is unsatisfied with her own body image. Oftentimes she feels out of control, and restricting her intake of food is one way to regain control. The patient has a sense of power over food, and this makes her feel more secure about everything else going on in her life.

Many times, girls with low self-esteem are the victims of eating disorders because they often seek approval from their peers. By being thinner, they believe that they will become more desirable. Studies have shown that the majority of women with eating disorders are adolescents. What makes a young woman associate thinness with beauty? Many are now beginning to believe that the media has much to do with how women view themselves. Young women see thin models and actresses in magazines, advertisements, and television shows. The media have portrayed the successful and beautiful protagonists as thin.

They have promoted the image of thinness through popular programming.. Thinness has thus become associated with self control and success. The average American woman’s body weight has increased over the past thirty years, yet the models that represent American women have become increasingly thinner. The media’s portrayal of happy, successful women being extremely thin makes a huge impact on women’s perception of beauty. When girls begin to compare themselves to the famous and thin women they see on television, or in magazines, they equate thinness with beauty, and many strive to become beautiful.

An increase in the number of diet and health articles and advertisements had also risen along with the number of eating disorders. Articles on weight loss can be found in almost every issue of women’s magazines, and new “miracle” diet books are constantly being published. Many of these diets are unhealthy, and some are even dangerous. Weight loss advertisements are found in almost every type of media, and women are constantly obssessed with the topic of weight. Many young woman can overlook the stream of thinness and diet propaganda that they encounter, but an increasing number of women are not so lucky.

As the media puts more and more emphasis on thinness, more women become dissatisfied with their own bodies. Some may argue that the media has nothing to do with a woman’s perception of herself. They believe that women want to look at people more beautiful than themselves, and that thin models inspire people to take better care of their own bodies. But researches suggest that exposure to thin models resulted in lower self-esteem and decreased weight satisfaction. Studies prove that the media does directly relate to and affect a woman’s body image and self-esteem, which is directly related to eating disorders.

There are ways that women can overcome social pressures about weight and appearance. One way to recognize stereotyping in the media and to appreciate and respect persons of all sizes. The media often portrays obese people as funny or stupid and they are frequently shown eating large amounts of food. Thin people, on the other hand, are portrayed as smart and successful. Acknowledging stereotyping will help to respect people of all sizes, and to accept all sizes as equal. Women also need to learn to reject negative messages from the media and to accept themselves as they are.

When women stop measuring themselves against the almost impossible standards that the media have set, and learn to like themselves, they will become happier with themselves and will not worry about their weight or appearance. One needs to find comfort in activities, people, or goals rather than food or appearance. When a woman learns how to love and care for herself correctly, she will be content with her appearance even if she is not what the media would portray as the “ideal” woman.

In the nation Katha Pollitt argues in her article “Kissing & Telling” that the media is against liberals, and or her views. Allan Levite in his article for the National review, “Bias Basics,” Levite argues that the medial is biased against conservatives. Both authors present arguments with deficiencies. They both have motives to be biased. One of them has to be right, but using the proof the two authors sight you could not tell which one. The two columnists each write biased columns that do not prove their points well. In Pollitt’s argument she says that the media ignores the real issue.

Which is a male harassing a female. She says that the media ignores the other cases of more serious offenses dealing with the same subject. She sights two other cases that she would have us believe are more commonplace than incredibly stupid elementary school kids. Her first example is the case dealing with the sixth grader who received death threats does not even clearly state what kind of hate was involved. It could have been sexual harassment, or it could have been because she carried Spam around on her forehead. She only names two cases as her examples.

So in her magical “evil people bash feminism land” her argument is ust as common as what she is complaining about, or maybe less common. No one is trying to bash feminism. This was not planned out to happen. (I hope) Also, kids in elementary school always are not thinking about getting their secretaries to have sex with them for raises. Personally, I think kids are stupid. Even I was a stupid kid. When I was in third grade a guy, Tommy, bit my ear. Because he bit my ear I have not become accustomed to Sado Masochist gay sex dealing around ear biting.

Tommy has not been going around biting people’s ears and getting turned on by this. He now cleans pools for a living. I doubt either of us cared at the time. Although I remember some crying. People who pee in their pants in grade school usually do not pee in their pants when they are grown up to be heads of the country. We would know about it if they did. Many children form weird attractions to doing many things when they are small. I used to think Bon Jovi was the coolest band ever. Now I laugh at my obvious immaturity, because I do not believe that anymore.

Kids have no idea what the hell they are doing they’re “dumb” and “cute. ” (And getting more sexual activity than me and those bastards can’t even multiply) Even Pollitt justifies my argument of the kid does not know what the hell he is doing. “De’ Andre’s whole family was famous, until they stopped returning reporters’ calls after he punched and bit a teacher. ” The kid probably will not grow up, and go around biting and punching teachers. Pollitt also tries to argue the point when she asks “And how can we raise children to respect another’s limits at 13– and– 30 if we think it’s cute when we do not.

She compares what the kids did to “sexual aggression and violence. ” This is a little bit strong comparison for a bunch of kids who robably have wet their bed’s recently. They do not exactly have secretaries to bribe with raises yet, or wives to beat. When I think of violence the first thing that comes to my mind is tearing one button from a skirt. (Really) I do not think these kids are anyway dealing with anything but their own ignorance. Charge them with stupidity or immaturity.

Come on, these kids are not even old enough to laugh in health class everytime someone says the word “penis. ” Another completely bogus thing that Pollitt suggest is if John Leo, who wrote the column on if he would have though it was so cute if the boys had issed other boys. Would the principal have thought that it was sexual harassment and suspended them in the first place? I doubt it. It would appear also that because of Pollitt’s past history she does hold some anger towards people who mess with others when they are children.

She does not appear to be too much a centrist when it comes to punishment of kids mistreating others. In fact, she probably holds some deep psychological grudge against kids who annoy others. Maybe to get back at the ones who annoyed and mistreated her she decided to write this column thinking that Johnathan and De’ Andre are just like the ones who angered her. This is the first reason for bias. There is probably a really good reason why this article is in a magazine that is so left winged it is probably communist.

Levite’s using the most incredibly dense, and stupid idea I have seen in quite a while. To decide whether the media is liberally or conservatively biased he uses a keyword search. Putting words into a keyword search is by no stretch of the imagination reliable for anything. Example: If I type “free porn” into the Internet search, InfoseekOOO I get some crap against child pornography, some Palmala Anderson non porn stuff, some crap on pay me some money “free” service, and actually only one real “Free Porn” site.

Keyword searches take two words and find them anywhere in the document. If I said, “I can see out over the airplane’s wing and on the right side I see a bird,” according to his search I am a pinko commie liberal bastard. A better example of keyword searches: I put the words ultra left and right wings into the searches. Right wing gives me information on cults. Left wing gives me information on flying. Consider Waco, and Montana cults and militias. That was front page news every day, and I do not seem to know of any left wing cults.

Probably because using a true Democrat a left wing cult cannot exist unless it happens to be a separate country. (See Aaron Burr) The fact that Levite did not actually check to see what ever the articles are on, or he just neglected to mention what they were about. If he did not mention them, might it be because it might hurt his argument so he left that subject out? If he did not even check the articles, why? Does he have an actual life? Or do his statistics prove what he wants to say so he decides why go any further? I also wonder how he decided upon what terms were considered offensive to each party.

Some terms considered to describe the right wing consist of everything from white supremacist rich capitalist to Nazi. Many of the psychotically dangerous right wing people I know skip the talk of “ultra liberal” and “liberal attack,” and go straight to “you pinko commie bastard” or the ever popular and multi-useful derogatory comment, “fag. ” As other essay’s discussed in class columnist can use the terminology more often than others, but there is still the same amount of columns biased on both sides. This is also ffected by other factors, such as editors who value comic strips more than columnist etc.

The methods used by Levite are not sufficient proof of the claim he does so well to argue in the first paragraph. He uses data that is based on the actual amount of reporters and editors who are liberal and conservative from the Los Angeles Times, and The Media Elite. If he would have used more data like the ones he used in the first paragraph then there would be no way to actually argue his entire essay. The first paragraph of the essay goes to prove his point beautifully. Damn shame the other three pages are completely useless because of he data he uses.

Quite possibly Levite’s data could be read by a left wing supporting columnist and turned around in his face with a look into the actual articles Levite uses in his search. If you plan on showing how something such as the media is biased then the one collecting the research should not be biased in the first place. Biased researchers look for what they are trying to prove instead of the whole truth, and might disregard something that does not prove their point. My suggestion is to get someone who hates both sides and will try to ruin them both.

Does the mass media cause undesireable social consequences with specific reference to It started by way of messengers and scribes, evolved through the presentation of newspapers and radio, brought us together with television, and now serves us world-wide via the ever-popular Internet. It is the mass media, and even from the earliest days of its existence, it has contributed greatly in ways that both enlighten and enrich society, and ways that deteriorate and perplex it.

It is not a surprise to learn, then, that the mass media is the most powerful source of information we ave, and nothing else in todays world influences public perception quite as Unfortunately, however, most of what is broadcast or transmitted in the news today is with reference to the chaotic condition of our planet, or something else that society as a whole sees as detrimental or damaging. But the news on television is not the only type of media taking the criticism of society.

Other forms of mass media, specifically movies and television programs containing pornography and violence have been heavily criticized. The underlining concept to be debated here is that society is negatively influenced, specifically, by these images of pornography nd the result is increased violence against women. This assumption, and it is indeed only an assumption, is completely fallacious, however, as no concrete and completely conclusive evidence has ever been formulated in support of the theory.

The key premise here is that the mass media does not cause undesirable social behaviour and in actuality, the media people should not be dubbed as the bad guys. They simply use their power in the most constructive ways possible in order to promote their ratings and popularity. One way to do that is to concentrate on what sells: sex, violence and disaster. Having said this, why is it then, that many in society still believe otherwise; why do they continue to believe that pornography is evil and is a major cause for violence against women, specifically rape?

There are many reasons for this misinterpretation and through the following few points, an attempt will be made to show that pornography has very little to almost no correlation with violence against women (of course nothing is absolute in society). In order to demonstrate this, it must be made evident that pornography is not evil and does not cause undesirable social behaviour by displaying nude women in sexually explicit ircumstances. Thus, it is important to indicate that women are not treated only as sexual objects through the media. This is done in an attempt to quash any traces of evil in pornography.

Subsequently, a second point, that some may consider to be completely bizarre, can be addressed; that pornography actually reduces the For thousands of years, sex itself has been considered evil and revolting. This is exactly why the concealment of the sex organs and teaching feelings of shame toward human sexuality is so common worldwide (Christensen 1990:4). These same feelings of shame are the chief reasons that sex is considered a personal and rivate matter. Contrary to the beliefs of many, the mass media did not create these settings; society creates this image.

In some societies, women have no reservations with regard to living their entire lives completely naked, while in other societies, females cover themselves from head to toe, only revealing their eyes. The media has been bombarded with criticism, overwhelmingly from the female community, relative to the amount of sexually explicit material that is published in magazines and that appears on television and in the cinemas. A common argument against pornography is that the media portrays women as being nothing more than exual playthings and objects to satisfy male sexual desires.

As before, the media once again, is not to be held responsible for creating this image; these views are It would be downright absurd to assume that women in this society are treated as sexual objects only because the media releases or broadcasts pornographic material. A magazine associated with make-up and skin care, for example, will quite obviously not be concentrating on much else. Such a magazine would not display pictures of women who mountain-climb or women who water-ski; only images of make-up and text referring to skin care would be relevant.

Clearly, ociety does not consider women to be beings whos only purpose in life is to worry about make-up and skin care; but why are the complaints only directed towards pornographic media then? The answer to this question may be more complicated, however, what remains obvious is that the media does not portray women as only being able to fill male sexual desires. To say that pictures featuring nudity, etc, are making objects out of women is foolish. One should consider females who pin-up posters of male rock stars or children who collect hockey or baseball cards.

Society, however, does not say that objects are being made out of hese rock stars and sports heroes; pictures of clothed people are no less objects Many complaints are also made to the effect that pornography only offers a one- dimensional view to life; that women are seen as nymphomaniacs who are hysterically addicted to sex. It should be pointed out that events such as hockey games, boxing matches, horse races and operas all offer a one-dimensional view of life. One does not attend an opera hoping to see a horse race. The underling problem here is that the above mentioned events are socially acceptable; media displaying pornography is not.

It is also said that the media reduces women to a collection of body parts through pornography (Christensen 1990:74). But why then are their no complaints of advertisements in magazines displaying only ears, for example, or a nose, or feet? The reason is a simple one; society considers certain body parts to be shameful or disgusting and once again, the media can be Realistically, the only way to prevent women from being seen as sex objects is for them to be seen as other things as well; but to say that women are not sexual beings would be misleading because both men and women are very much sexual (Christensen 1990:42).

Similarly, to say that women are singled out in the media is fallacious due to the many examples of media where men are seen catering to the needs of women; something known as chivralic sexism (Christensen 1990:42). Take, for instance, a recent television ad portraying young men groveling at the feet of supermodel Cindy Crawford, almost begging to be the one to cater to her needs. There were no lineups of men aching to announce their displeasure with the sexist ad; and this is precisely why male stereotyping in the media often goes unnoticed.

Similarly, it is pornography in the media that is noticed and shunned by nti-pornographic and censorship organizations because it seemingly singles out females for their bodies. It should be well noted, however, that paperback romance novels, which make up an incredible 40% of total paperback sales (Gerbner 1988:15), depicts males as sexual objects, performing what is called Sweet Savagery (rape), just as pornography depicts females as sexual objects. But once again, this goes unnoticed. It is fundamentally important to realize that the media does not deliberately create images of hate or disagreement (Howitt, Cumberbatch 1975:80).

They just nfluence the more appealing things in society (thus directly increasing their ratings). Although it is obvious that pornography is largely a male interest, a noted increase in female interest would certainly cause an increase in the amount of pornographic material geared for women; this relates to the laws of the business world Having discussed the untruthfulness of the claims against pornography and showing that pornography is not evil, it is now possible to consider the violence issue.

Are men who are exposed to pornography likely to commit violent acts, such as rape gainst women, more so than men who are not exposed to pornography? It is tempting to believe that media influences males and overstimulates them through pornography to the point that they become aggressive towards females. But this is completely baseless; just as pornography arouses or stimulates, it also satisfies.

The American Commission on Obscenity and Pornography performed a study in which several college students were asked to spend one and a half hours in an isolated room with a large volume of pornographic media, as well as a large volume of non-explicit media such as Readers Digest (Howitt, Cumberbatch 975:80). The study was conducted over a three week period over which time it was discovered that the males involved in the experiment began to lose interest, or become desensitized to the erotic media nearing the end of the experiment, even if new material was added.

To address the argument that males are pushed over the brink into committing rape because of pornography, one may point to the evidence above; to cover the female body would theoretically only increase male sexual desires. Four more separate experiments were conducted of which the above was one. Three other experiments came to the conclusions that ornography does not cause violence against women and reported that the number of sex offenders that had been exposed to pornographic material were smaller in number than the amount of sex-offenders that had not been exposed to pornography (Christensen 1990:130; Harmon, Check 1988:28-30).

These results can be offered as evidence against the claim that males become overstimulated and thus dangerous when exposed to pornography. Other experiments conducted in the early 1980s by the Williams Committee in England, reported that as the availability and abundance of sexually explicit material increased, the number of iolent sex crimes such as rape did not increase, but in fact decreased in many So what is it about pornography that women and anti-pornography organizations do not like? Violence!

One of the greatest myths about pornography is that it contains an excess of violence against women inevitably resulting in real-life violence against women. Anti-pornography groups release propaganda that the media approves of violence against women through pornography. In actuality, however, the total amount of violence in sex-related movies was found to be approximately 6% in a study by T. Palys in the early 1980s in Vancouver, Canada. Even this material was almost entirely composed of verbal threats and spanking (Christensen 1990:59).

In addition to the above, studies in Ohio also found that the amount of violence in G-Rated movies was a staggering two times more than in X-Rated movies. In fact, major films such as Die Hard: With A Vengeance and Terminator 2, contain extreme violence 85-90% of which is directed solely at men. There are, however, exceptions; the slasher genre of movies contain much more violence towards women, possibly due to the desensitization to violence in other genres of films. Because women are involved, violence against them could create a true sense of horror.

However, this does not suggest that men should go into society and rape a woman any more than it suggests that men should go out and kill other men. Horror movie fans choose to watch these movies because they enjoy portrayed violence. Needless to say, no sane individual would wish for this violence to become a real-life conception. Similarly, sex also excites people and because these two elements offer the most thrills in movies, they are often It should be pointed out that women, and not just men, also enjoy these thrills ased on numerous studies.

When discussing pornography, it is scarcely noted that men are not the only ones who enjoy fantasizing about sex. Women also enjoy pondering sex; just not through pornography. In fact, most of these fantasies involve some degree of violence or force and are largely driven by the romance novels discussed earlier (once again supporting the evidence that romance novels prove to be the female equivalent to male-geared pornography). Recent reports published by Nancy Friday, show that the number of female fantasies involving rape far outweigh the number of male fantasies involving rape.

What comes as a surprise to many is that in male fantasies, the woman rapes the man and conversely, in female fantasies, the man rapes (Sweet Savagery), the woman! (Christensen 1990:66). Fridays reports also provided some interesting reasoning for the female fantasies. Her reports find that females fantasize about rape to show that they are not acting in accordance with such sinful actions; to show that sex is being forced upon them. Any other feelings towards the fantasized rape would prove to be undesirable social behaviour and amazingly, the media is not even involved!

Actual laboratory experiments (Hawkins, Zimring 1988:103) have shown that when groups of women were shown erotic scenes involving rape, their reactions to the scenes were as or even more stimulating than less violent consensual lovemaking scenes. This is not to say that all women want to be raped; far from it. This is to say that if women can fantasize about rape but not wish to experience it, then men, too, can fantasize about rape and not wish to commit it.

In addition to the many other accusations against pornography, many in society believe that there is definite connection between organized crime and pornography. Although this may be true, the idea is largely over-exaggerated. The reasoning behind this theory is very simple, yet very shallow. Consider, that pornography is created by organizations and contains sexually explicit material that may be thought to be legally obscene in some areas.

To make the connection, these anti-pornography organizations assume that the organizations (hence organized) that produce the legally obscene (hence crime) material, are operating illegally. It is obvious why pornography is attractive to criminals; just as anything that is banned r is made illegal, there is always someone who will pay the high black-market Having considered the issues at hand, it can be said that since there is no concrete evidence to support otherwise, pornography in the media does not cause undesirable social behaviour.

As mentioned before, sexually explicit movies and magazines do not just arouse, but also satisfy. It is an undisputed fact that feelings of love and happiness cancel out violent feelings (Zillman, Connections Between Sex and Aggression) and to say that pornography endorse violent feelings fails to make sense; if it did, why would men want to be exposed to it. To suggest that pornography causes men to go over the edge and commit rape is as ludicrous as suggesting that pictures of food cause the hungry to steal more food.

It has even been said by some women that rape is the fault of women who dress provocatively; they ask for it. According to this logic, in the event that pornography is banned, then an attempt should be made to force women to cover their skin and wear clothing that completely hides the shapes of their bodies so as As members of society, we recognize the power of the mass media. We understand that public perception can be easily persuaded.

But it should be clearly understood that pornography in the media alone cannot persuade men to cause harm to women; it cannot cause men to do things that are socially unacceptable. As was mentioned earlier, pornography only causes feelings of excitement and satisfaction and these feelings overpower those feelings of violence. For these reasons, it can be said that until a positive link can be found between pornography in the media and violence against women, it will remain that sexual violence such as rape is the result of sexual frustration, and not of sexual arousal.

The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. While the political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century, its advocates such as John Fiske argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populus itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector.

Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience are able to break all the indented meanings within a media message, and by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power bloc that is trying to impose its ideology to the public. Consequently, this anarchistic activity of the audience creates the popular culture as a defense mechanism. Even when we accept Fiskes ideas, we can not disregard the manipulative power of the media and its effects on cultural and social life.

Everyday, we are exposed to millions of different visual messages which tell us what to eat, what to wear, what to listen and what to watch. No matter how hard we try to avoid being influenced by these directives, only up to a certain point we can protect ourselves, and after that, no interpretive power can be helpful. Media, then leads us to a path that ends up in the same department store with our neighbor, with whom we have probably never talked before, but holding the same pair of socks or CDs, and we might never want to recall the TV commercial that had opened the gates of this path.

United States is the biggest economical power in the world today, and consequently has also the strongest and largest media industry. Therefore, it is essential to take a look at the crucial relationship between the media and the popular culture within the social context of the United States for a better understanding of the issue. For a simpler analysis of the subject we shall divide the media industry into three main branches: Entertainment, News and Commercials (which is the essential device for the survival of the industry, and shall be considered in integration with Entertainment).

Researches have shown that the most popular reason behind TV viewing is relaxation and emptying the mind. Therefore, the entertainment programs, being the only choice for relaxation, are the most effective tools of influence, since during these programs the viewers are least busy with conscious mental activities. The TV series (mostly soap operas) are the most popular programs within the entertainment group. The easiness of viewing them is the reason behind their popularity. Each of them is created for a certain type of audience profile: housewives, working men, teenagers, children etc.

Within these categories they are also divided according to social and economical bases. While Dallas would appeal to any average American, Thirty-something would mostly be popular among the yuppies, and Young and Restless among the housewives. However, this distribution is not intended to satisfy the viewer, but to satisfy the advertisers. Since, lets say an importer of French vines, is sure that mostly the viewers with high income and luxurious tastes would be watching Thirty-something, he can confidently advertise in the commercial breaks of this program, rather than of Married with Children.

However, the most striking characteristic of the series does not come from their commercialist structure and their power of encouraging consumerism, but from the cult that they create. In November 1980, 70 million Americans turned on their televisions to learn the murderer of J. R in the Dallas series, and after the show, 150 TV stations 3500 professional and 2500 amateur radio stations announced the murderer in the news headlines and broadcasted commentaries about the issue. During the specific episode of the series, a one minute commercial was sold for 500 000 US dollars (Senyapl, 112).

The fate of an imaginary character had become the most important subject of discussion in the United States. In other words, 70 million Americans were not able to interpret nor change the message of the series, and while back in the February of the same year, 30 to 50 thousand people in Washington were protesting the reestablishment of the registration for the draft, now they were mostly curious about J. R (Vietnam and America, 301). On the other hand, a TV channel that was fully established on the purpose of entertainment, MTV, took a mission that was totally not expectable.

In 1992 the channel started two campaigns called “Chose or Loose”, and “Rock the Vote”, in order to increase the voting rate among the young generation. The result was highly positive; polls taken in late October showed that 75% of the 18 to 29 age group said that they would vote, compared to the 40% in 1988. In addition the votes were heavily in favor of Clinton who had accepted to present himself on MTV, unlike Bush (Edelstein, 110). Although the picture may look positive at first, with a deeper perspective it becomes dramatic.

The only way of appealing to the young generation seems to be through a music channel, which is based on the creation and consumption of a popular culture. They get interested in politics only when their idols tell them to do so. Their free thinking ability is limited with the mediated message that appeals to them, and they act mechanically according to these messages, highly contradicting with the “free your mind” slogan of MTV. When we talk about the successes of TV campaigns, we shall always consider the inverse process that can also easily take place. Therefore, the picture can be viewed more critically.

At this point a question comes to mind. Why are we so much influenced by TV; How can it ever be such a powerful device? To understand this, we shall consider Festingers theory on social influence: “If one believes that a sheet of glass is fragile, one can test that belief by hitting it with a hammer. The subjective validity of this belief depends on physical reality testing. However, a belief like socialism is the way forward for humanity can not be tested the same way. Such a belief is correct, valid and proper to the extent that it is anchored in a group of people with similar beliefs, opinions and attitudes” (Turner, 19).

This hypothesis by Festinger is supported by three additional points: 1) If other people agree and share our attitudes, then we are more likely to consider them as subjectively valid. 2) We prefer to join groups of people with whom we agree, which in the end causes a stronger agreement of a specific issue. 3) And finally, the less we are able to make physical testing the more important becomes the agreement of similar others to validate our beliefs (Turner, 20). To get to a point where television takes its place as an instrument of conviction, we shall add a final hypothesis about influence.

According to Deutsch and Gerard, informational influence is influence to accept information from another as evidence about objective reality. Conformity is motivated by the desire to form an accurate view of reality and to act correctly, and is increased by the uncertainty about the correctness of ones judgment and the ambiguity of the stimulus situation (Turner, 34). We always have a considerable amount of uncertainty about our decisions, and always look for conformation from a friend or an authority. The role of the television at this point is its being the collection of all possible organs of conformation.

It is obvious that when we take two newspapers, say The Guardian and The Daily Mirror, we are more intended to believe the news covered in The Guardian. However, as Giddens puts it, according to a research, if a news report on TV differs from a newspaper account, more than twice as many people will believe the televised version as the newspaper one (Giddens, 79). The listeners of the Nixon- Kennedy debate on the radio saw Nixon as the obvious winner. However, the ones who watched the debate on TV were sure that Kennedy would become the new president of the United States (Hughes, 4).

The TV viewers were right, but what made them think that way if it was the ideas that mattered? According to Giddens, if the current trends in TV watching continue, by the age of 18 the average child born today will have spent more time watching TV than in any other activity except sleep (Giddens, 449). In 1947, there were 170 000 TV sets in US homes, by the year 1991 the number reached to 750 million, and considering the fact that an average 18 year old American is exposed to approximately 350 000 TV commercials, the picture becomes more dramatic (Coupland, 182).

The persuasive affect of the television, therefore follows two steps. First it is the synthesis of video and audio, which means that it involves action and sound as the most realistic forms of communication making it the most popular electronic device ever prodced. We are more likely to accept what it tells us as the truth than any other medium. It is in the most respectful corner of our living rooms, where once our grandfathers use to tell fairy tales. It is a member of our family, that holds some magical ties with the outer world, through which we learn the deeds of our times.

It is the head of the household in the traditional sense, that tells us the right way to behave, the right goods to consume, the right people to choose. It survives with our confidence, that lasts forever despite all our criticisms. It socializes our lives, which we deliberately try to hide behind the curtain of the fast city life. It does this by visually integrating our materially disintegrated society, with its promotion of a stereotyped consumption fetishism.

It is the most favored mean of communication which “demands not to be spoken to while it is speaking- in the name of the TV- a law that any child will invoke against its stuttering parents” (ONeill, 13). The second step in the visual influence process starts at this point. For all the reasons described above, television is the most trustworthy medium to give us the subjective validity of our beliefs which can not be proved physically. It is the ultimate source from which we can get evidence about objective reality, motivated by our desires to form an accurate view of this reality and to act correctly.

Our uncertainty about the future and more importantly about our own time, which is expressed by individualism and the loneliness of the individual itself, increases our dependency on the television, and the role of this magical machine at this point is giving us the feeling of being part of a well functioning and united system. As ONeill writes; “the specular function of TV lies in its ability to individualize the mass while treating the individual only as a member of the masses” (ONeill, 181).

However, the most important effect of media, and especially TV, is not derived from the exposure of visual images and commercials that tend to create a popular consumer culture, but actually from what we are not exposed to. The gate keepers of the news industry control all the information, and decide on what to publish or broadcast, based on the ideology and the structure of the institution. This is not censor in classical sense, but rather an auto-control mechanism that functions for the survival of the system and the controlling of the public.

Therefore, whatever is presented in the news would rather be a part of the popular culture (created by the entertainment industry) or would serve it, since the popular culture itself is created for the growth of the capitalist economy and the homogenization of the society, which are essential elements for a stable system. In 1961, president Eisenhower talked about an acquisition of unwarranted influence by what he called the “military- industrial complex”, and stated that measures had to be taken to guard against this “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power” (Roach, 17).

Colleen Roach makes an addition to this analysis, and underlines that since 1961, a new component has been added to the military- industrial complex; communication, and gives the following example: “In 1986, the intersection between communication, industry and the military became most apparent when General Electric (GE), one of the worlds major defense contractors, bought RCA and with it NBC” (Roach, 17). Lee and Solomon give supporting evidence about the integration of the media and the military- industry:

The boards of directors of the Big Three (CBS,ABC,NBC) are composed of executives, lawyers, financiers and former government officials who represent the biggest banks and corporations in the U. S. , including military and nuclear contractorsThere are numerous interlocks between the board of directors of the New York Times and the nuclear industry, which partially explains why it has been a fanatical supporter of nuclear weapons (Roach, 18).

Understanding the connection between the media and the military- industry gives us something more than its war promoting function, but shows its role in the decision making mechanism of our age. Any capitalist regime, not considering a dictatorship, needs the private enterprise for survival, therefore the extent that it can act against the private sector is very limited, and television lives with advertisement and sponsorship, rather than audience. Therefore, what we mostly see on the screen is what the sponsors promote, which are usually mechanisms to keep the society stable.

As Mosco puts it; “electronic communication and information systems (from ATMs to TV) make it possible to gather massive amount of information about the choices of different groups of people, so as to better manage and control group behavior (Roach, 46). Lets, now look at different examples of the use of TV as a mean of control over the society. Before January 1991, public opinion polls showed that the American public was split into two groups, 50% each, about whether the U. S. ould attack Iraq or not.

However, says Roach, if any antiwar voices had been heard in the mass media at this time, the outcome could have been completely different (Roach, 20). The second example turns out to be a more tragic one, when we talk about the freedom of speech. After, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the pictures of the irradiated Japanese were not made available to the American public until 1980s (Roach, 25). The following is an example of this “hiding” policy of the gate keepers.

In November 1983 the Americans had the chance to watch ABCs The Day After, which was about the survival of a small number of Americans after an atomic blast. The film dramatically showed the dark side of the nuclear technology, and in 1982 a Canadian director, Terri Nash made a documentary called, If You Love This Planet, and won the Academy Award. In his work, he used the Japanese films about the effects of the atomic bomb. However, “as of 1987, the U. S. Justice Department requires registration of screenings and persons viewing the film which it classifies as political propaganda”, says ONeill, and continues:

The difference between the two films is one that nuclear TV cannot stand, namely, that in one case we see the actual horror of a bomb dropped by Americans and that, in the other case, we see the fictional horror of a bomb imagined by Americans to have been dropped upon Americans by someone else. Thus TV is engaged in a retrospective political history on the nuclear front which parallels the current remaking of the Vietnam War and Americas re-humanization of military adventure (ONeill, 190-91). In both cases, we see the stabilizing function of the television.

Through an auto-control mechanism, and the promotion of what the authorities define as suitable, it manipulates reality into a socially comfortable and acceptable rhetoric. As the audience, we consider the tales of the television to be the most reliable ones, for now it is our new grandfather. Therefore, the control of the society through TV, by those who control it, and directing the society towards a certain destination, which is found to be the “way forward for humanity”, and keeping the system together by creating a popular culture based on consumerism; turns out to be a post-modern way of practicing authority in our post-modern lives.

After all, we breathe visually; we live with images, both of ourselves and of other people; we talk with the symbols of a mechanized life, “everything is under control” ; we pet the remote-control, not our little puppies; and we thankfully worship our TV set, for He has enabled us to be what we are today. We are the children of a new clan, and TV is the Good Shepherd of the post-modern times, preaching the virtuous American way of life, and He has long established “His Kingdom on Earth”.

“It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated” (Sweet Liberty, 2000, 1). The media is a part of everyday life in America. News and events outside of one’s home or neighborhood are brought to their area via the newspaper, magazines, radio, television, and the internet. As the quote above mentions mass media, and its components, are very powerful and are capable of influencing one’s mind, as well as their behavior.

The images and stories introduced to children and young adults make it difficult for these viewers to distinguish between fact and fiction (Cable News Network, 1998, 3), thus stimulating confusion and blind emulation. In Torr’s Violence in Film and Television, film and television editor, Harvey Roy Greenberg, says that different forms of aggression, either spoken, sung, danced, or written have appeared in practically every “clime and time”. In other words, the media and violent entertainment have been around since ancient times.

In the Stone Age, violent images were painted and carved into their stone canvases, the Romans enjoyed gladiatorial combat, and the Victorian English enjoyed plays and puppet shows often featuring murder and swordplay as ways of exciting the audience (Torr, 2002, 15). Violence on television, or portrayed in literary form, may have been more mild and censored in the past, but all the same, the public was still vulnerable and easily influenced by what they witnessed and experienced.

Hollywood, currently, is very candid and graphic in its productions, especially depending on the director and editor. However, in contrast with today’s wild interpretations and brutal killings, in the 1930s, Hollywood abided by production codes. These codes “regulated all aspects of screen content, with an elaborate list of rules outlining what was permissible to show and what was not” (Torr, 2002, 22). As times changed and American society became more informed about reality and the violence which took place, the codes were modified, eventually leading to film ratings.

Although Americans were more aware and the ratings provided some restrictions, this did not mean that emulation and confusion were eliminated completely. ” virtually from the cradle, children in the United States are bombarded by violence on TV, in movies, and in song lyrics” (Cable News Network, 1998, 2). Children are easily swayed and influenced by the many images and pictures presented to them through the media. By high school graduation, children will have spent roughly 50 percent more time in front of a television than in front of a teacher (Dudley, 1999, 32).

Parents, often times, are too drained or pre-occupied with their own lives, leading their children to find comfort in watching television or playing video games which, consequently, become the prime examples for their actions and behaviors. “For all too many Americans, the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV” (Sweet Liberty, 2000, 2). These children hear the news and watch shows and films where innocent people are being stolen from or being killed, but they have nobody there to teach them the difference between what is real and what is not, what is right and what is wrong.

An article printed in Time magazine, titled Suburban Smackdown, is a great example of how the media persuades children to impersonate what they view on television. The article concentrates on the violence of wrestling and how some children and young adults are putting on shows, costumes, masks and all, for their neighbors based on these wrestling characters they see on TV. “It may not be the Rock vs. the Undertaker on prime-time TV, but the high school boys of the Extreme Wrestling Federation of Sayerville, N. J. ry hard to make their contests look just as real'” (Fonda, 2000, 49).

It may be fun and games for a lot of these kids, but images seen on a Best of Backyard Wrestling video included kids jumping onto barbed wire, setting their opponents on fire, and other kids somersaulting onto mattresses studded with sharp objects (Fonda, 2000, 49). “And the violence seems to be trickling down from teenagers to tots” (Fonda, 2000, 49). The Wrestling Federation and the high school boys’ imitation is similar to a slippery slope.

The professional wrestlers are not setting a good example for these boys by promoting fights and violence for no reason, other than winning a trophy, and these high school boys are not setting a good example for even younger children because they are expressing that violence is fun and “okay”. One year before this article was published, in Dallas, a three-year-old boy was killed after his seven-year-old brother stiff-armed him in the throat, trying to imitate a move he had seen on television (Fonda, 2000, 49).

After hundreds and thousands of years of media influence, it cost children’s lives and innocence for the pro-wrestling federations to run don’t-try-this-at-home ads during their matches. Children are a large majority of the population influenced by the media, but it is not them alone who imitate and follow what they see and hear on a daily basis. “Media experts say the last four decades of research have shown a clear correlation between violence on television and the development and display of aggressive values and behavior by both children and adults” (Torr, 2002, 99).

Adults watching the news are influenced by the events occurring locally as well as internationally; however, it not so much what they hear, but more how it is being presented. For example: “which items are emphasized and which are played down, the reporter’s choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations–all of these subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear” (Sweet Liberty, 2000, 2).

Not only does the news affect the way adults think and view the society, but film and violent entertainment also play a large role in influencing their behaviors and actions. A good, very recent example involves Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of Christ. “. . . A Fort Bend County man has fanned the flames of the fervor when he confessed to killing his girlfriend after viewing the movie in hopes of seeking redemption” (Klentzman, 2004, 1).

The Passion of Christ’s message influenced this man in a positive way, in confessing for his mortal sin, but the other side to this positive media influence is not so bright Leach, the man convicted of the murder, suffocated his girlfriend and got the idea of making it look like a suicide from the weekly series CSI (Klentzman, 2000, 2). Music and its lyrics have also played an enormous role in shaping and molding American society’s minds. Today’s music is absolutely nothing like the Oldies. The modern-day society is accustomed to hearing music where 50 percent of the lyrics are what are considered “bad words”.

Heavy metal and rap lyrics have elicited the greatest concern, as they compound the environment in which some adolescents increasingly are confronted with pregnancy, drug use, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, injuries, homicides, and suicide” (Dudley, 1999, 55). Artists like Marilyn Manson and Eminem have parents worried because they do not want their children being exposed to such vulgar language, afraid they will try to emulate these particular artists and the stories conveyed through their lyrics, often times including the subjects of beating their wives or slitting their wrists.

Another good example of how the music world influences people’s minds and behaviors is the suicide of Nirvana’s Kurt Cobain. “‘When Kurt Cobain died, I died with him’ was the note left by an eighteen-year-old who, along with two other friends, executed a suicide pact following Cobain’s death” (Dudley, 1999, 34). MTV and other music stations play a crucial role in young adults’ lives. With continuous coverage of celebrities and music artists, many people find the need to conform. “Parental awareness, supervision, and discussion are critical variables in heading off additional tragedies” (Dudley, 1999, 34).

Video games have become a more recent trend, but just as the other sources of media, these games have the potential of influencing and molding the minds of children and adults. In the past, video games like Pong, consisted of a ball which would bounce off of two sticks. Nowadays, video games like Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto, consist of cursing, shooting, beating, and killing humans and monsters. The National Coalition on Television Violence found that more than 75 percent of video games contained violent images (Sherrow, 1996, 71).

Many researchers believe that video games have a stronger effect on children than merely watching television because the players take a direct and active role in the violence; the researchers also believe that the players of these games will become desensitized towards violence and disregard human life because, in these games, they are able inflict pain, but no pain is inflicted back on them (Sherrow, 1996, 71). Many of these images mimic reality, using lifelike scenes and situations.

What we see happening, is that there is so muchrealistic-type violence portrayed in movies and other situationsThey think that if you shoot somebody, they get up” (Cable News Network, 1998, 4). As well as promoting violence, video games also encourage anti-social behavior. Instead of going outside and playing sports or interacting with other people, many people choose to stay indoors, in a dark room, playing on their video game systems. With the advancement of technology, how can one forget the Internet? Since its development in 1993, the Internet has been an excellent resource for research, entertainment, and communication.

However, the Internet also has many flaws. Like video games, the Internet also encourages anti-social behavior; one may be able to communicate through AIM services and such, but it is possible to be addicted to the Internet. Those addicted to the Internet do not feel the need to socialize in another setting, perhaps outside. Also, the Internet has many websites for games, interesting facts, and useful yellow page information; however, it also has many websites very inappropriate for children and young persons, like pornography or violence.

As mentioned above, lines of communications are often opened up through the Instant Messaging services, although this may be a positive thing, it can also lead to dangerous and harmful situations. For example, children using the Internet and talking to their friends through instant messages may enter chat rooms. These chat rooms are full of strangers and people of all ages trying to take advantage of young minds. For instance, there have been many cases where older men have posed as 10-year-old boys in order to meet up with a child of the same age group and rape or kidnap them.

Parents may try to block and limit what their children see or do on the Internet, but with the education and information children and young adults receive today they can easily break the “locks” placed upon their access on the computer. Although media images may be enlightening, a lot of the time they are disturbing and provocative, especially depending on the audience. “Common sense just tells you that there’s obviously an influence. Television is the most powerful medium in the world. Movies, the entertainment industry, the music industry, they’re very powerful” (Cable News Network, 1998, 14).

As one is able to tell, the mass media is present in our everyday lives. By watching the news, reading the newspaper, watching the television set, or going to the movie theatres, the media is always there. Whether one may realize it or not, in one way or another, the media has influenced their behaviors and/ or actions. From birth to death, people in America will live in a society in which their education and their futures revolve around the mass media and its messages, whether they are positive or negative; it is the American way of life.

A sign system is representation through communication which in turn leads to a shared meaning or understanding. We hold mental representations that classify and organise the world (whether fact or fiction), people, objects and events into meaningful categories so that we can meaningfully comprehend the world. The media use sign systems through newspapers, magazines, television,internet, and the radio etc. The conceptual map of meaning and language are the basis of representation. The conceptual map of meaning, are concepts organised, arranged and classified into complex relations to one another.

The conceptual map of meaning although allows you to distinguish your own individual interpretation of the world, at the same time as holding similar views to that of other people in your culture. As the meaning is produced and constructed and in turn learned by a particular group of people. Therefore sharing conventions and codes of their language and culture. Signs can only convey meaning if we possess codes which allow us to translate our concepts into language. These codes are the result of social conventions which lead to the shared maps of meaning.

These shared meanings are learnt unconsciously as we become members of a culture. If we have a concept of something in our minds we can say we know the meaning of this concept. However we cannot express or communicate this meaning without the second system of representation, language. Language is the only way in which meanings can be effectively exchanged between people, as people within the same culture are able to interpret the sign of language in the same manner. As the meanings become natural through the conditioning of culture.

For example the word white in Australia represents a colour of purity, however in China it is the colour of death. Demonstrating that different cultures have not only have different meanings in their shared conceptual maps, but a different language to express it. As meanings change rapidly throughout cultures to really understand another culture you must live there and speak the language for some time. Cultural, social, political, and linguistic conventions are learned over time. The three theories of representation, reflective, intentional and constructionist approaches explain how representations through language work.

The reflective approach is where language functions as a mirror of the particular elements perceived meaning. The intentional approach, is where the authors individual views of the world are expressed. Whereas the constructionist approach is where we the audience construct the meaning through our shared conceptual maps and language. The media use these sign symbols so that an association can be made to the object, person, event, or idea etc. With this information of representation and language the media can familiarise people with many things, such as cultural knowledge.

As advertising surrounds consumers, concern is often expressed over the impact on society, particularly on values and lifestyle. While a number of factors influence the cultural values, lifestyles, and behaviour of a society, the overwhelming amount of advertising and its prevalence in the mass media suggests that advertising plays a major role in influencing and transmitting social values. In his book Advertising and Social Change, Ronald Berman says; The Institution of the family, religion and education have grown noticeably weaker over each of the past three generations.

The world itself seems to have grown more complex. In the absence of traditional authority, advertising has become a kind of social guide. It depicts us in all the myriad situations possible to a life of free choice. It provides ideas about style, morality, and behaviour. While there is general agreement that advertising is an important social influence agent, opinions as to the value of its contribution are often negative. Advertising is criticised for encouraging materialism, manipulating consumers to buy things they do not really need, perpetuating stereotyping, and controlling the media.

The media must consider the cultural variables of each country, such as the complexity of learned meanings, norms, language, customs, tastes, attitudes, religion, traditions, education, lifestyle, values, and the ethical/moral standards shared by members of each society. These variables must be learnt by the media as not to offend the group they are portraying. Cultural norms and values offer direction and guidance to members of a society in all aspects of there lives.

Every country exhibits cultural traits that influence not just the needs and wants of consumers but how they go about satisfying them. The media must be aware of the connotations of words and symbols used in their messages and understand how advertising copy and slogans are translated. Advertisers can also encounter problems with the connotative meaning of signs and symbols used in their messages. However within a given culture there are found smaller groups or segments, whose variables (as listed above) set them apart from the larger cultural mainstream.

Known as subcultures the media must also learn about their variables as they are just as important due to their size, growth and purchasing power. Such as the Asian or Italian communities in Australia. The study of culture has led to generalisations that may apply to all cultures. Such characteristics are known as cultural universals, which are manifestations of the total way of life of any group of people. These include such elements such as bodily adornments, court-ship, etiquette, family gestures, joking, food, mealtimes, music, personal names, status differentiation and trade.

These activities occur across cultures, but their manifestations may be unique in a particular society, bringing about cultural diversity. Common denominators can be found, but how they are accomplished may vary dramatically. These elements are both material and abstract. Primarily through the media these images are where we find references to conjure images of other countries representations. These signs are made common to the masses through the media, which in turn through repetition reinforces the image as common.

The media use repetition and consistency of a few stereotypical elements to reinforce the central role of the image, linking it to a specific culture. These stereotypes produce otherness from the dominant culture, by focusing on a few different attributes of another culture. This often gets reduced to easy to digest differences such as food, clothes, appearance and music. Which suggests that culture is based on material things around us, a culture of possessions. However these representations avoid important issues that could be very different between cultures.

Advertising perpetuates some of the myths associated with certain cultural groups such as, African American men are good at sports, The French are arrogant and Australians are lazy. As Chiara Giaccardi said in TV Advertising and Social Reality;Advertisements tend to capitalise upon recurrent images and forms of presentation; in so doing they reinforce them, not so much through the individual texts as through the accumulation and repetition of ritualised representation during the entire advertising flow. Advertisements refer not only to things and situations but also a way of seeing and interpreting them.

Advertisements constitute a repotoire that viewers can draw upon both for representing and understanding themselves and for making sense of their external reality. Advertising shapes reality to serve capitalism and the post modern position, according to which advertising offers a pleasurable synthetic experience as a surrogate for reality. (Chiara Giaccardi,TV Advertising and Social Reality) Advertising is therefore meaningful as it creates a sense of familiarity with the ways of experiencing it in a represented form.

However as Gillian Dyer states in Advertising as Communication;We must recognise that the images conveyed by the media have, over the last thirty years, become so sophisticated and persuasive that they now organise our experiences and understanding in a crucially significant way. Advertisements encourage extravagant expectations because they are more dramatic and vivid than the reality – reality cannot match up to the image. Therefore cultural knowledge is obtained through the medias sign system.

Which is evident through my knowledge of many countries and cultures without ever travelling overseas. Stereotypical elements of particular cultures shown through the media allow me to have perceived meanings and understandings of other cultures. However the stereotypes of culture portrayed through media signs are predominately tourist stereotypes. There are many advertisements in the print, audio and visual media that portray cultural knowledge. Particular signs that we can link to specific cultures, due to the familiarisation with them through the media.

For example the television commercial for Simpson washing machines which showed Indian Dhobi washer women banging their clothes against a washing machine to clean them, instead of a nearby rock. Using the tag line The hardest working appliances in the world, suggesting that the product is trustworthy and has stamina. The sign systems that the media used where firstly the opening shot of the Ganges River in the foreground with Indian temples in the background. You then see a mass of Indian women in traditional dress washing clothes in a traditional manner.

Although hard working the commercial suggested that their product was also as strong as a rock. The use of the washing machine as a rock for clothes washing and the dumbfounded look on their faces when they saw the electrical plug, suggests that India is a third world country and the people do not have electricity. Although they did not know how to use the machine they continue to use it in place of a rock. Throughout the entire commercial traditional Indian music was played. The music and appearance of both the people and the structures clearly suggests to the viewer that it is India.

However these signs would not have been recognised without prior media familiarisation. Therefore through cultural stereotypes providing cultural knowledge. Another example is the West End Gold beer commercial. Animation is used to view two mosquitoes talking to one another. The setting is a barbecue with a group of stereotypical macho male friends getting together after a hard days work to eat food and drink beer. The mosquitoes are happy that the men are now drinking mid strength beer as they are not falling asleep, making fools of themselves, and they are able to drink more blood.

Although referring to themselves it was clear they were actually talking about the men involved. Suggesting that they can spend more time with their friends, consume more beer and have more fun. The commercial was set in a middle class backyard, which features a run of the mill Australian barbecue in which the beer is helpful to people with subtle humour. Traditionally Australian beer commercials have portrayed beer as a reward for hard manual labour or driving through the desert, such as the Victorian Bitter campaigns.

The Australian cultural signs used were the image of the macho male okka, drinking beer, having a barbecue with only male mates. I believe these images are used to promote the Australian barbecue culture. These images are also known across the world due to the movie Crocodile Dundee. Another example is the use of the Mexican cultural stereotype to promote a new McDonald’s burger. As the burger had an added sauce that was spicy the advertisers used the Mexican image to portray this. As traditionally the Mexicans eat very spicy food such as Tacos.

You instantly know that the characters are Mexican due to their appearance, dark skinned, long moustaches, wearing ponchos and sombreros, riding horses through the desert. The music and appearance of the characters are the main signs used to recognise Mexico. However the poor dubbing of their voices and the words ondelay ondelay are also common cultural signs portrayed in the media. Italian signs are also often used to sell food products such as pizza and pasta. For example the Dolmio commercials that use to be on television.

They showed a large Italian family(Italians like large families) having pasta for dinner(traditional Italian meal), they had napkins tucked into their shirts(suggesting they were going to eat a lot of food in a messy manner), the characters were primarily large, they used the words mama and papa(Italian words for mum and dad) and the main character had pasta sauce on his mouth with the tag line do you wear the Dolomio grin. All of which are signs the media use to portray Italian people. Once again the music also played a major role in recognising the cultural stereotypes. Even the name Dolmio sends a linguistic message of Italianicity.

If the media do not understand the cultural characteristics of a country they would not be aware of the shared cultural values of the community and could easily offend the country. For example the eating of beef in India is not practised, the colour white is a symbol of death in China, and the left hand in some countries is known as the toilet hand. This demonstrates the differences in culture that could be very embarrassing for companies. The simplicity of colour or a name could be very offensive and have disastrous implications, which demonstrates the necessity for market research.

However I believe that cultural values also need to be lived to be learned, for more accurate results. The media are a very powerful tool of communication. They are used as a tool to educate, inform and entertain people all over the world. However the common sign sytems in which they use to portray many groups are often sterotypical. I know that Australian men are not all like what is portrayed in the beer commercials, due to experience of the culture. However all I know ofd the other cultures around the world is what the media portray, therefore providing me with my cultural knowledge.

The purpose of the media has become an ongoing question since the large amount of conflicts between the consumer and media. Why is the original purpose of the media so damn hard to figure out? It is time to confront this issue instead of blowing it off by saying, “We can never change the media, so why bother? ” What kind of chickenshit statement is that?! If there are so many people with so much power, surely one of them realizes the downward spiral of the ethics of the media. I feel my sole purpose of this paper is to tell everyone my ideas and viewpoints on censoring the media. Ooooooo, censor.

What a bad word that is when used in the same sentence with media. So many people believe censorship is a bad thing, but there is no other solution in stopping the “bad press. ” When I sit back and look at the stories about stories that are bad and offending to someone, I realize something needs to be done. The media is out of control. True, there are many informing and needed stories, but, my god, how many times a day to we need to hear and read about how much money O. J. Simpson has to pay the family of Ronald Goldman? We, as consumers, need to sit back and ask ourselves, “What was the point of hearing or reading that story?

Back to the censor issue. I, as an aspiring journalist, do not believe in total and complete censorship of the media, but also, as an aspiring journalist, I am embarrassed of some of the stories that are run, for instance, when the crime scene photos of Jon-Benet Ramsey were run in Globe magazine. Was there not anyone, an editor, a writer, or even a custodian at Globe who thought, “Uh, oh. These photos may get us into some trouble. ” Was there not a single sole who had enough ethics to try and stop these pictures from being printed? This is where censorship comes in.

If I could do anything in the world, I would first, stop world hunger, and second set up some guidelines and laws that the media must obey. Guidelines such as, no digging through peoples trash and no peeking in windows. Of course, we know that by law, there is to be no peeking in windows, or over fences, but there is no one at the editors desk to implicate these laws. There is supposed to be someone there to prevent these stories from running, but remember, their paycheck depends on how many copies are sold or how high the ratings are.

This “censor person” needs to have a set wage. If there was someone to stop these types of occurrences, half of my problems with the media would be taken care of. This may sound like a lame solution, but we need to start somewhere. Obviously this is not a complete solution to these problems with the media, so the next step would be to start using the editors for weeding out the stories that are not giving some type of information that the consumer wants and needs to hear or read. This is also easier said than done.

This solution also brings up questions like, how does the editor know what stories the consumer wants to hear or read about? That is the responsibility of the media. Let them take polls and give every effort to find out what we want. Journalism will only survive if it establishes a more valuable and clearly defined mission, (Morality of Mass Media , Ellen Hume. ) I could write a book about all the things I want to see changed in the media before I become a part of it, but I will not.

There should be a line drawn so that the media can be punished for their wrongdoing. Many people agree that there should be a line drawn and like it or not, that line is called censorship. Our founding fathers did not want censorship on the media, but they probably did not think that the media would be doing such a crummy job. I do not want to say that all media is doing a bad job. Overall, they are doing a fairly good job, but there is still a large amount of dirty press that needs to be cleaned up.

“All media are extensions of some human faculty — psychic or physical. The wheel is an extension of the foot; the book is an extension of the eye; clothing, an extension of the skin; electric circuitry, an extension of the central nervous system. Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions. The extension of any one sense alters the way we think and act — the way we perceive the world. ” Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, The Medium is the Massage (sic), (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967), p. 26. Before going into how we manage knowledge, maybe we ought to take a look at ourselves.

What makes us tick? You know, get out a species microscope and watch us strutting around, sleeping, eating, drinking, filing things and procreating. Well, sure. No subject too large. What are we? Why do we have so much trouble getting along? As genomic research increasingly reveals, we are separated from our fellow creatures by less than we once imagined, or might have wished for. Once we thought we were different from all those other creatures. There was a time not long ago when we imagined ourselves to be a maker and user of tools, and uniquely so.

We thought this defined us. We were THE CREATOR of tools. This idea of ourselves, this notion of Man-the-Tool-User lasted for nearly a century, right up to the moment some one noticed a chimp breaking off a branch to retrieve ants from an ant-hill. Not that man isn’t a tool-user and tool-maker of the first order. Think about some of our tools: clay tablets, printing presses, TVs, computers, hard drives, and atomic bombs of one kind or another. The list is staggering, but perhaps our tools are only by-products of something more central to who we are.

Maybe we’re information makers and users, rather than tool makers and users We are curious animals. It is curiosity and our own ingenuity that has brought us to this place, after all. Does more curiosity always lead to more information-seeking? If a flower or plant is photo-tropic, does that make us info-tropic? Why else do we pursue the information around us? Samuel Johnson wrote: “Curiosity is the thirst of the soul… ” “The gratification of curiosity rather frees us from uneasiness than confers pleasure; we are more pained by ignorance than delighted by instruction.

Curiosity is the thirst of the soul; it inflames and torments us, and makes us taste every thing with joy… ” Technology, the collective tool kit we’ve assembled for our semi-skilled use, has led us into elaborate information-seeking over the years. Like the creation of an IT department for example. It’s got everything, from INFORMATION to TECHNOLOGY, the best of both worlds, though maybe, as Peter Drucker suggests, we could do with a little more “I” and a little less “T” in our knowledge mix. How has our info-tropic nature led us into such a quagmire of knowledge-fragmentation?

Or, better yet, let’s say we understand how the corporation got to be where it is today — it’s a given. A better question might be, How do we get out of here, particularly if “here” is a place where important things can’t be found? “What good is knowledge if it just floats in the air? It goes from computer to computer … but nobody actually knows anything. ” There’s every possibility, based on more evidence than we have time to look at right now, that human beings are a lot better at information-seeking and knowledge-creation than knowledge management.

The image that keeps coming to my mind when I imagine some far-flung corporate empire, operating across a world of time zones, is a string of islands, an archipelago, maybe something like the Malay Archipelago, with 17,000 islands and hundreds of languages and cultures. It’s easy enough to see how we got ahead of ourselves in “managing” the data, information and knowledge that’s used to run the company. The corporation put its information resources in all the usual places — filing cabinets, human heads, databases, bookshelves, PC hard drives and IT departments.

The people who opened the Atlanta plant replicated some of this stuff, creating new resources in the process. Their IT department created some things, but so did HR and R&D and Marketing and Manufacturing and Distribution. The company decided to open quarters in Berlin and Tokyo. Some gifted people developed deep expertise in obscure but important things. Their knowledge-seeking paid off, and their value increased. They lacked enthusiasm for sharing this expertise with just anyone.

In all probability, this is not an exaggerated picture. If anything, it may be understated. So how do we make the jump from globally-disbursed resources, where no one in the oranization really knows where anything is, with any certainty, to something more unified and find-able. Or do we? Are some black arts required, or is this something humanly do-able? I [never met] the senior manager who knew what information was available for decisions. Very few senior executives have asked the question, “What information do I need to do my job? In part because they’ve all been brought up with the accounting information that they understand. But the other type of information system, they don’t understand. ” A recent study says that the average employee spends 7-10 hours per month tracking down information that is already known by someone or something somewhere within the organization. It could be more than 7 – 10 hours, or it could be less. As few as ten employees could be wasting 70 to 100 person-hours a month chasing information. What a crushing waste! And they told us the computer would save us time.

Remember that promise? Where is the time this technology has saved for us? “The information’s unavailable to the mortal man We’re workin’ our jobs, collect our pay Believe we’re gliding down the highway When in fact we’re slip sliding away. ” According to the accounting software giant Intuit, the average American today works 14 hours more per week than he or she did in 1969. Would it be naive to suppose that we can reverse this trend, or are we doomed to continue working harder, and getting nowhere fast in the process?

Like the fellow in the rowboat, rowing harder won’t do the trick, particularly if the boat’s pointed in the wrong direction. In tribal New Guinea – largest of the 17,000 islands in our Malay archipelago – around 800 distinct languages are spoken. Very little imagination is required to visualize how life might be affected by this. Some New Guinea tribes, dwelling in small isolated communities and speaking a language only they understand, live pretty much the way they did 25,000 years ago, their belief systems untouched by other civilizations.

The sea or the forest supplies their primitive needs. Beyond the immediate environment, their home turf, lies danger, darkness, and strange people speaking foreign tongues. Knowledge transfer is not an issue in tribal New Guinea. But for the modern corporation, knowledge transfer is ever-present as an issue, even though it may not always be recognized for what it is. As Thomas Davenport points out in Working Knowledge, without a shared language, the members of an organization can neither understand nor trust one another.

He is speaking loosely of a “language”, as in a taxonomy or shared understanding, and not just of speaking French or Tagalog, but also of speaking the language of mechanical engineering or even the language of social class. British Petroleum, for instance, hires consultants to translate reports made by “roughnecks” who work on BP’s North Sea oil rigs, into a language that its executives back in London can grasp. 1 To get beyond this language barrier, a language-neutral platform is needed. A virtual community where issues of language don’t exist, and individuals can interact easily.

How big is too big for a organization to know what it knows? More than one study suggests that the maximum size — one in which people know one another well enough to have a good grasp of collective knowledge — is between 200 to 300 hundred individuals. Remember the space and time issues surrounding the thousands of islands within our virtual Malay archipelago of information. We intuitively understand the depth of knowledge and resources in far-flung corporate empires such as Siemens AG or General Electric, but consider the barriers to getting at the right information in such a diversified enterprise.

Think about people working in plants and offices and laboratories scattered across the globe speaking 14 languages. Who knows who in such an enterprise? To be sure, there are electronic gadgets for everyone — PDA’s and powerful computers and databases and cell phones ad infinitum. A cynic might say, “So? ” How does an organization remember? If it is an extraordinary organization and has good access to projects that were kept on paper and digitally, how has it managed the recall of these events?

When Bridgestone/Firestone decided to recall some 6. 5 million tires in August of 2000, some employees could remember the last such event. “Twenty years is a long time, but memories of how a huge government-mandated recall in the late 1970’s nearly bankrupted Firestone Tire and Rubber — the company’s name before the Bridgestone Corporation of Japan bought it in 1988 — clearly resonate. ” “‘The oral history around here is that we were a lot too slow to cooperate back then,’ said Christine Karbowiak, a Firestone spokeswoman. ” 2

Though “luck” wouldn’t seem to apply in a case such as this involving millions of potentially defective tires, having employees around who remembered the missteps of the 1970’s, and who could therefore avoid repeating those missteps, may be lucky indeed. Only time will tell if the vestigial oral history remaining among a few stalwart Firestone employees enabled the company to learn its lesson, or if the lesson must be relearned, to the loss of all concerned. The ideal would be to transform such spatial complexity into a platform where space no longer exists.

Marshall McLuhan, writing about his vision of a global electronic village, saw a place where space and time were no longer barriers to interaction or knowledge. 1a It was a place in which the 17,000 islands in our information archipelago metamorphose into one continent. 3. Culture Clash & Competitive Intelligence If we could implement a system that allows us to take advantage of the knowledge within the organization — to manage all the information in filing cabinets, hard drives, book shelves, and the heads of the employees, we would have done a great deal. But not nearly enough.

What we would not have done is take a look outside the corporation. If we don’t peer out the window to see what the competition is doing, we could be deluding ourselves. According to Peter Drucker, “Very few senior executives have asked the question, ‘What information do I need to do my job? ‘ The information you need the most –and not just in business –is about the outside world, and there is absolutely none. It doesn’t exist. You’d be surprised how much outside information about customers and non-customers companies simply do not have and, in many cases, cannot get.

And yet, you don’t make your decisions [based] on what goes on inside the company; you shouldn’t, at least. ” 3 During World War II, at the southern tip of the Malay archipelago, islanders were exposed to a sudden influx of goods and wealth, courtesy of the Allied Armed Forces. Ships, guns, airplanes, jeeps, and the myriad goods necessary for modern warfare were produced in mass quantities. Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen were trained by the thousands and sent to the south pacific.

The indigenous peoples living on these islands were totally awed when their normally placid skies resounded with the roar of aircraft engines, and their seas trembled not just with the massive whale, but with a ship’s propellers. After the war, when the abrupt flow of goods just as suddenly disappeared, “cargo cults” of islanders began imitating the rituals surrounding the influx of goods during the war. They set up fires along small replica bamboo or dirt runways. They designated “radio operators” to handle imaginary radio traffic and waited for more goods to arrive from the sky.

Some went so far as to build bamboo control-towers, complete with radio aerials fashioned from vines. They got all the superficial appearances correct, yet the planes didn’t return. Jon Frum, a cargo cult hero, is still awaited on Vanuatu. 5 It is heart-wrenching to consider the futility of human hopes, in cargo cults and in our own world as well. Built to understand and to learn, we are also capable of self-deception, denial and blindness where our wishes are concerned. There are any number of reasons that managers can be comfortable with things as they are long after the reality of external events should have made them ill at ease.

With a little denial, the stench of a conflagration in corporate headquarters can easily be taken for a cook-out down the block, even when a fire-alarm is ringing in our ears. “These days it may seem impossible that any manager could be so inwardly focused as to believe that their company is insulated from change or that the skills and markets relevant to today’s success will be identically relevant tomorrow. Yet the front pages of the popular press are full of accounts of former flagship companies now apparently struggling to stay afloat — Digital Equipment Corporation, Wang Corporation and Sears, among others. “Sears counted on its excellent store sites, its decades of dominance in retail, its mighty purchasing power to maintain its position in the market. Some critics aver that Sears managers disdained to notice Wal-Mart’s incursion into their merchandising territories: well into the 1980’s, Sears position papers did not even list that company among competitors to be watched. ” 6 Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, later noted in his autobiography, “One reason Sears fell so far off the pace is that they wouldn’t admit for the longest time that Wal-Mart and Kmart were their real competition.

They ignored both of us, and we blew right by them. ” 7 In some cases, cases such as this, company culture can lead to grave misunderstandings about the external environment; or about the nature of reality. Ernest Hemingway, when asked what is needed to be a first rate writer, brashly said “To be a truly good writer, you need an automatic crap-detector. ” What’s needed is a competitive intelligence system that looks at the reality of exterior events, and a management willing to look at what lies before it. 4. Managing Historical and Tacit Information “The ignorance of how to use knowledge stockpiles exponentially. The blueprints, diagrams and written programs for building an atomic bomb are kinds of explicit knowledge, but the tweaks made during the construction process are tacit knowledge. A signed agreement is explicit knowledge; what was said by the participants up to and during the signing is tacit. Both can be vital corporate knowledge, but we do a better job of capturing explicit knowledge. “Los Alamos, NM — When John Richter retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory three years ago, he took with him nearly the equivalent of China’s entire experience with nuclear weapons…

As wizards like Dr. Richter retire, they are taking with them invaluable expertise about just what makes bombs work. There are only about 50 people in the U. S. who, like Dr. Richter, possess both the know-how to make a nuclear weapon and the “fudge-factor” — the memory of last minute tweaking and intuitive short-cuts that made some of the nation’s 1,000 or so nuclear weapons tests work. “Nuclear-weapons design was then [when Dr. Richter was a young apprentice Ph. D. at Los Alamos] taught in a kind of medieval apprenticeship.

Dr. Richter hung around one or two bomb designers to see how they did it. ‘You worked for those guys until you didn’t need them anymore,’ he says. “The quicker you did that, the quicker you could do more things on your own. ” 4 What’s needed in any organization is a way to capture the “fudge-factor”; to save and store what was said and done and acted upon outside of formal documents and procedures — a way to manage not just explicit documents and events, but tacit events and actions as well.

“‘We do not often print everything we know,’” reveals David Lawerence, publisher of the Miami Herald (qtd. in Valente 4). There is a contrast between printing everything that is known, selecting information to disregard, and presenting information that is simply false. This difference has an impact on society. Media personnel representing a major bias also have an affect on facts that are being analyzed by the masses. Thus, accuracy in journalism is important to help an informed public make decisions. Journalists are trained to operate under a professional code of values and ethics…” states a foreman for the Society of Professional Journalists (“Code of Ethics” 1).

According to the SPJ, each individual in the media is aware of their code of ethics. An important ethical concern of the society is that journalists need to be accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers, and each other. They are responsible to “test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error” (1). The society does not permit the deliberate misuse of information.

Not only that, but “unethical practices of other journalists…should be uncovered and exposed” (2). The SPJ does contend however, that a journalist’s main interest should be the public’s right to know (2). Lastly the society states that if there is any miscommunication between the public and journalists, the public should be “encouraged to voice their grievances against the news media” (3). The SPJ, along with other organizations such as AIM. org and FAIR. org, is promoting accuracy and media fairness, but also trying to ensure careers of respectable journalists without compromising the legitimacy of information.

Many editors and journalists in the media agree that there are journalists who do not abide by the code of ethics presented by the Society of Professional Journalists. The most popular belief among conservatives is that the news media has a liberal bias. The liberals, believe the news media has a conservative slant. Conservatives contend that the press gives short shrift to traditional conservatives topics such as religion and family values, while giving disproportionate attention to liberal positions such as abortion, feminism, gay rights, and the environment (“Media Bias” 157-158).

The journalist may be liberal and might claim that attention is unbalanced in favor of the conservatives. Such seems to be the opinion of liberals in the 1996 election when 111 daily newspapers supported Dole’s campaign, while only 65 endorsed Clinton’s (158). This shows that although media bias does for the most part tend to be liberal and democratic, conservative bias does exist and still affects the public. However, the affect any bias has on the public varies because “consumers define bias in sources differently than journalists do” (158).

Scholars argue that at certain times the American press has been more liberal or conservative, reflecting the climate of the country at the time (Valente 10). Although one critic reasons that the problem may not be journalistic bias, but the way journalists approach balance and fairness might be misunderstood, even rejected by the news consumers (Hess 65). A crucial job of a journalist is to appease the public while maintaining a balance of opinion in his or her work. Another technique to alter the appearance of a story is to present false information.

The popularity, for example, of one-hour newsmagazines has placed pressure upon these moneymakers to create flashy and sensational reporting often at the expense of accuracy and honesty (Hess 65). As in the case of Dateline, a newsmagazine affiliated with NBC, two car crashes were staged to show that GM trucks were unsafe and hazardous to the public. Later it was discovered that the “holocaust” fire that was described was in fact planned by NBC to “get a decent show” (61). The piece was later retracted due to obviously fraudulent actions on NBC’s part.

What the public views on TV has a great impact on how they act in life. According to a poll conducted at the Roper Center, 71% of those surveyed said they relied on news in helping them make “practical decisions…in manners such as investing, purchasing, voting, health, and education” (Valente 4). Accurate and honest information is then crucial to the quality of the decisions made by the public. The poor material, as well as the responsible material, impacts society as a whole, says Lou Prato in his article “Most Journalists Are Ethical. He continues to say that “responsible, honorable journalism still exists” (74). However, there are members of the media who believe that they themselves have not done an adequate job covering news that builds community, inspires people, and offers solutions. “We must better this,” says Richard Oppel, a journalist himself (qtd. in Valente 4). Although the people of America seem content with the old-fashioned way of getting news, such as Nightly Network News, Local TV news, and local newspapers (Newport 32), 90% of the public said the media’s desire to profit “improperly influences the news” (Valente 5).

The fact that the traditional news outlets are the least trusted intensifies the pressure on these journalists to improve their reporting. The task of reporting the news is a demanding one. How the journalist may be impacted is often overlooked in cases of inaccuracy, censorship, and bias. It must be taken into consideration, however, the impression a journalist has on current events in the media. In a study done by FAIR. org, it was discovered that 90% of the news media agreed that the Nightly Network News was not as accurate as it could be (“Examining the Liberal Media Claim” 3).

This shows that the media is aware of the problem at hand. However, what it does not show is the impact sloppy reporting has on a respectable journalist. Stereotypes tend to tarnish the work of the entire profession. Many respectable reporters are out working to give the media a decent name. “The performance by local broadcasting and print media during the 1992 Florida hurricanes and the 1993 floods in the Midwest is proof” (73), says Prato. He agrees that the media does have reporters in it that are irresponsible and immoral, but those are the ones that need to be point out and scrutinized (73). It is counter-productive for anyone to…tar the work of the entire profession,” explains the article (Prato 73). There is the belief that the journalists do not show enough respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities, but it goes both ways. The readers and communities need to trust those journalists who are doing a decent job. Alexandra Marks explains in her article, “To the Public, the Press too Often Gets it Wrong,” from SIRS Researcher, that the public needs hold up their end of the deal. This is where the solutions to media problems may lay. The past is often a blueprint for the future.

Lessons learned in the past can change and alter activities later on, and care must be taken in how one writes, and how one interprets the news. Society is informed today. When discrepancies first appeared, however, the public’s difficulty knowing whom to trust was evident. “‘Twenty or thirty years ago there was plenty of plagiarism, embellishment, and other unethical short cuts,’” explains Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post (qtd. in Koch 1129). The number of cases within the past five, ten, even twenty years, in which the public’s well being is put at risk, is what is disturbing.

The severity of the cases, and the varying punishments, also cause controversy. Gays in the military is an issue on the front burner nowadays. In 1993, there was an overwhelming controversy concerning this issue. Most of the reports were negative. However, a positive RAND study never got significant coverage. This report supposedly cost the Pentagon $1. 2 million, and President Clinton based his 1993 Executive Order on this study. This study, as found on the “Real News Page” website, revealed that 76% of military participants were against discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

When the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was struck, RAND was reluctantly forced to back itself and it’s study off due to the lack of enthusiasm to print controversial issues. As a result, the American people were deprived of a substantial educational document that could have provided research information and facts to the public’s debate on gays in the military. , Magazines, newspapers, and TV are responsible in some part for the distribution of this information, and they obviously failed to inform the public in this incident. Twenty-seven out of 41 articles.

That is the ratio for how many of Stephen Glass’, an ex-columnist for the magazine New Republic, writings included inaccurate or fabricated information. This may have been one of the most striking and controversial cases because it struck the hardest and it blackened the eyes of journalism (Koch 1129). What shocked most was that Glass was never formally charged, just quietly dismissed. In the case of CNN and Time Magazine, the issue was not dealt with immediately and modestly. The television news station and the magazine were reporting that the U. S. military was using nerve gas to kill American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam War Koch 1129). The “‘serious faults in reporting’” were not acknowledged until the U. S. government exposed information that disproved the story. The program and the magazine only then retracted the article (1129). In the past, cases have been more localized as well. Two Boston Globe columnists, including popular Mike Barnicle, were dismissed for fabricating people and quotes, and plagiarism (Koch 1129). In this case, the situation was handled properly by the staff of the Globe, and dealt with neatly. The guilty were punished, and it was made clear that that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.

The final scandal is that of the Cincinnati Enquirer retracting an 18-page investigative “expos of the Chiquita Brands Company, apologizing and agreeing to pay $10 million in damages after learning the reporter had stolen information” (1129). The interesting thing about the Chiquita case is that the paper has still not said what, if anything, is untrue, says Kurtz (qtd. in Koch 1129). “‘…it is disturbing that a paper would pay $10 million before the company even filed suit,’” questions Kurtz. The case has come to a close, however, and the public will never know if the information contained in the lengthy report was accurate or not.

In some ways, journalistic ethics have improved over the last half-century (Koch 1129). “The latest scandals are just because journalists want to be stars, and that goes on in Washington more than anywhere else”, says Koch, defending the media (1129). There are also cases where a crime may be truly grisly, and it might not be in the public’s best interest to have it published. Thus, not all the stories that are not presented in full context are meant to mislead the public. Cases of past media inaccuracies have affected the way journalism is reported today.

As a direct result of early discrepancies, some journalists are taking it as their cue to shape up their reporting. Others are taking the fact that poor reporting in the past has been punishable only with a slap-on-the wrist to mean that lazy and irresponsible reporting is not a concern of the public’s. Some companies are out to prove these journalists wrong. As stated in Tim Jones’ article, “Gannett Unveils Rules for Ethical Reporting, Editing,” selected from SIRS Researcher CD-ROM, Gannett Co. , Inc. , America’s largest paper company, created new ground rules for it’s papers to abide by.

These rules include forbidding reporters from misstating their identities, and urging their editors not to publish a story “if it doesn’t feel right. ” According to Jones, Gannett is the owner of 50-some papers worldwide, and this is quite a task to tackle. Misgivings about the paper’s confidence are also arising, states Jones, because the paper’s affiliated with Gannett have had troubles in the past. These misgivings do not concern the company. Gannett is now satisfied, with the positive image it’s projecting, and hopes others follow in it’s footsteps, concludes Jones.

The company’s actions in trying to improve is reputation is a step in the right direction for improving the media. Gannett is a rare case, however, and other situations in reporting cause groups to try to ignite new changes. Liberals are in an upheaval about conservative slants in the media because “major segments of the media are run and owned by large corporations that tend to favor conservative viewpoints,” states the article “Media Bias” (159). Liberals believe that a solution to bias and false reporting is breaking up existing mergers where a few major companies own everything.

This currently is a problem because “it makes reporters less likely to cover potentially negative news about the products or management of the network’s parent companies” (“Media Bias” 159). The breaking up of mergers does not appeal to many Republicans who contend that the mergers keep the media simple (158). The editorial pages of the American Press have been consistently more Republican as a whole, says David Broder (qtd. in “Media Bias” 158). The compromise expressed by the liberals would also decrease a popular belief that society is plagued by liberal bias.

In coming to an agreement, they’re setting aside politics to better the media industry. Changing the media for the better is always a goal of society. Always trying to achieve perfection is the American way. Comments with negative slants tend to set back society, and change its outlook, however. Nothing can be accomplished in the way of progressing to journalistic heights with comments such as, “…media reform is a societal illness,” as stated in the article by Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. , found on EBSCOHost. The comment by an anonymous journalist projects the idea that reform is a waste of time, hen in reality, in order to succeed, reform and change is necessary. In the future, society can hope that journalists strive to meet the standards their held up to. Readers and viewers have their own opinions about the way the media handles itself.

Distrust of the media increases with time. Forty-six percent of the public believes conversations they have with their family and friends are more reliable than local newspapers, according to a study done by American Journalism Review in Gallup (Newport, Saad 33). Another interesting result of the study was that CNN and Headline News both got a trust percentage of 59 and ranked highest. Conspicuously missing from the top tier for perceived credibility is the nightly network news, with a net trust rating of only 43%,” say Newport and Saad (33). The results confused many journalists such as Carol Marin, who questions how “trash TV can prosper in a climate that people profess to abhor…” (Langone 238). People are proving, however, that they want things to change. Thomas Rush, a democratic senator from Illinois, wants to get a bill passed in Congress to force inaccuracies and laziness in the media to be more punishable. The Rush bill is aimed to target the incorrect media that is affecting the public directly.

Another aspect of the bill is to improve racism in the media work place, which also causes bias (Langone 238). The bill has a myriad of backing, but the support continues to fuel the fire between the media and the public. Contention is that the media is irresponsibly presenting the public with information that is either false or bias. The motives behind these actions need to be taken into consideration by the public, however. A myriad of journalists report the news conscientiously, leaving out pieces of stories here and there to either cut down on time, to ossibly protect the victim of a crime, or to protect the public from something truly gruesome. These good deeds of responsible journalists do not black out the inferior work of poor journalists. However, the poor journalism should not damage the work of an profession. Thus, journalistic integrity is localized to specific journalists, and it must be society’s role to weed these reporters out and separate their poor doings from the rest. Society is teetering on decision. The media has showed themselves, purposely or otherwise, to have inaccuracies in their reporting.

The media affects the public’s decisions in multiple aspects of life. Unless “‘they [the media] give the public a sense that they take [reporting] seriously, I don’t think there is an opportunity to regain that trust,’” says Andrew Kohut to Alexandra Marks in the article “To the Public, the Press too Often Gets it Wrong,” from SIRS Researcher CD-ROM. It can be agreed upon, in retrospect, that the media’s reputation has been damaged in not presenting all the information, and it will take time and a different news environment to regain that respect.

Osborne and Lewis state that “[a] preeminent theme in Australian thinking about the use of communication is the extent to which it has been viewed as a form of control” . There has been concern in recent times of the enormous power communication holds as an agent of societal control. This is due to a number of factors, such the ‘media mogul’ dominated media, which promotes a very conservative view and does not allow for alternate opinions to be voiced.

The wide-reaching capabilities of the media, particularly electronic media via the Internet allows for the influence to spread across the entire country to remote areas and therefore heightens a sense of societal control. Although there have also been calls for harsher and more defined regulations to be set down on the media industry in light of its influence, the concepts of free speech and censorship have existed ever since the introduction of the mass media.

With the current trends in Australia moving towards “an essentially corporatised system of public communication” , concerns about the extent to which media and communication controls society will continue to be of relevance in Australia. The very basis for Australia, that is colonialism and settling a new land, formed the foundation for the media of the nation. In 1803, The Sydney Gazette, a government publication, became the first Australian newspaper to be circulated in the colony. It dealt with legal news, farming news and other areas of interest for the colonisers.

Of course, it was aimed only at educated white colonials and not indigenous people or convicts. Despite starting as a government controlled newspaper, by 1824, the year that The Australian was started, all government ownership of the press has ceased and private owners were involved. This was a sign of things to come and is the root of current problems with dominant ownership of the press. Although by 1923 there were twenty-six metropolitan dailies owned by twenty-one proprietors, this balanced industry was not to remain and by 1983 there were only three major owners in the press industry.

In 2001, two major media companies dominate the Australian press – NewsLtd, and Fairfax. A government controlled media is not possible in a democratic society, however a media industry controlled by media moguls with widespread influence is hardly a better option, and results in a greater and more centralised control over society. The ‘media-mogul’ dominated industry presents enormous problems and certainly contributes to the fear of controlling power held by the media. The fact that one person, family or company could control the majority of newspaper media that is being fed to society is consistent with the growing fear of social control.

Rupert Murdoch, and his company NewsCorp, currently owns more than half of the newspaper industry in Australia, as well as about one-third of British newspapers. He also has film, TV, newspaper and publishing interests in the USA and owns Star Television in Asia. NewsLtd, the Australian subsidiary of NewsCorp, publishes 67. 8 per cent of the capital city and national newspaper market; 76. 1 per cent of the Sunday newspaper market; 46. 6 per cent of the suburban newspaper market; and 23. 4 per cent of the regional newspaper market.

Fairfax owns and controls 21. 4 per cent of the capital city and national newspaper market; 22. per cent of the Sunday newspaper market; 18. 1 per cent of the suburban newspaper market; 15. 4 per cent of the regional newspaper market. This total domination by two companies over what information is provided to Australians via the press is disturbing and further enhances the notion of the powerful control of the media over society. Although the situation is not uncommon in other nations, particularly the USA where Murdoch owns controlling interests in a variety of media formats, the concentration of media ownership is more pronounced in Australia than in any other modern Western society.

Therefore, this form of communication is a controlling influence in society because when there are little alternative news sources, the public is vulnerable. Despite an obvious dominance by NewsCorp and Fairfax in the Australian press, the alternative press attempts to limit the control of these corporations. An alternative publication can be defined as one which “provides a new and clear alternative to mainstream journalism; it covers general news and political issues; it is not owned or affiliated with a major chain; and it is not the official publication of a major political party. One aim of the alternative press, aside from providing another view on current political and social news items, is to give a voice to minorities, such as Indigenous and Aboriginal peoples, women, migrants, youth and the aged who are largely excluded from the mainstream media. An alternative publication, The Green Left Weekly claims that they are not just the mirror of News Limited and they stand for an unbiased, full coverage of current events.

The establishment media [mainstream] seek to maintain the existing power relations in society; the alternative media have to challenge and change those relations. ” While it can be said that alternative publications such as these do provide an alternate point of view, the question arises: is it any less controlling in society? and indeed, is it any less biased? Claims that the alternative press is unbiased and pushing for change and reform only reinforce the notion of media as a controlling influence in society.

Despite existing Australian laws preventing any one person or company from having controlling interests in more than one media outlet, for example newspapers and television, the increased interconnectedness between nations, in particular between the USA and Australia, has seen this occur regardless. The Media Ownership Regulations in Australia state that “the major effect of the laws is to prevent the common ownership of newspapers, television and radio broadcasting licences that serve the same region. The purpose of the legislation is to encourage diversity in the ownership of the most influential forms of the commercial media: the daily press and free-to-air television and radio. However, when international corporations become involved, this becomes increasingly difficult. Also, regulations involving news content on the Internet are not well-established and therefore many companies have a controlling interest in either television, radio or print as well as online ventures. This results in a greater domination of the news and therefore control of society.

Osborne and Lewis see that “in the late 20th century, it is the corporate global sector, aided by satellite, cable and computer technology that is expanding the control function of communication in Australia. ” Thus, because Murdoch was able to utilise expanding technologies he is the considered to be “only media mogul to create an to control a truly global media empire. ” The motivations behind controlling interest in media are also cause for concern. On the one hand, there is the desire to inform and educate a society.

However, the driving force behind these media empires is the almighty dollar and a quest for more information and more control over society. When Kerry Packer wanted to purchase the Fairfax network in 1991, parliament passed the Broadcasting Amendment Act to prevent him from doing so. The news, as presented in a variety of ways, is shaped by society. As the Australian population continues to grow the sales of mass media undergoes the same growth. Mass media is financed due to the massive influence both the print and electronic media has on Australia’s society.

However, it is also shaped by the bias and the quiet censorship employed by mainstream media in order to remain in a position to exert control. That is, “media outlets owned by a corporation will support government directly, mute criticism of it or withhold from the public information that could damage or embarrass it. ” The government then abolishes or waives official media regulations in return. Clearly, the regulations for media control and ownership need to be addressed to lessen the societal control.

Government regulations regarding the media are substantially different during times of war. The media is required to censor various information deemed counter-productive and in some cases publish propaganda-like articles to further the government’s will. The distribution of information and mass media during the world wars significantly altered the way that Australians viewed communication. The propaganda machine put in place by the Nazi regime in Germany during the second world war in particular contributed significantly to the notion of a potentially dangerous and controlling media.

However, despite the obvious and damaging effects of the Nazi propaganda, more benign but equally biased war messages were being delivered to the Australian population by the media at the same time. The wars were portrayed as fun and games, and the devastation and death of the reality of war was seldom expressed in the press. Lost battles were covered up and small victories were the focus of a heightened sense of celebration to ensure morale remained high for the war effort. There was a broad view that, during the wars, in the inter-war years, and beyond the mass media exercised a powerful and persuasive influence over society.

This is largely due to the sheer amount of information provided to the public by the media. The governments’ control of the media during the wars has relevance today as they censored the news as they saw fit to prevent anti-war sentiment arising. A perfect contemporary example of how the various facets of the media in Australia can control society can be seen in light of the terrorist attacks on the USA in September 2001, and subsequent coverage of the ‘War on Terrorism’. All newspapers, radio stations and television stations were biased in their presentation of the facts.

By presenting wall-to-wall coverage of the event, the media controlled society simply by deciding what they should view and think. This type of media coverage available only in this ‘technological age’ has a profound impact and control over society. However, it was not the excess of the coverage that was the main controlling factor. The manner in which the information was presented was extremely biased and definitely in favour of the USA. The mainstream media has largely ignored or downplayed public questioning of US actions, and protests against continual bombing of Afghanistan.

For example, a number of protests were held across Australia to demonstrate anti-war feelings on October 8th, 2001 and yet the major daily newspapers did not cover this at all. Ultimately, mainstream media presents the views that the government wants to put forth in a bid to ensure regulations are not tightened on the media. In the US, the CEO of CBS Dan Rather stated that “George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions, and, you know, I’m just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. ” This blatant statement enforces the notion that the media falls in line with the current government.

The issue of bias and censorship, particularly during times of war is further evidence of the controlling influence of the media. Repeated showing of a message from Osama bin Laden over all major US television news networks, in which he urged more violence against Americans, resulted in the decision to edit all further messages from bin Laden and other terrorist groups as the White house had “reservations of allowing bin Laden such access to American television” . Similar control over the media is also evident in Australia regarding what is shown to the public of the ‘war on terrorism’.

The mainstream media clearly support John Howard’s stance on supporting the US ‘war on terrorism’ and as such have not published any articles condemning his actions or the actions of the US. Little coverage of anti-war protests and saturation coverage of the terrible and tragic side of the attacks on the US use emotion to sway society thinking. For example, the media in Australia presented snippets from personal accounts of the terrorist attacks in America and personal reflections on those who were lost. In contrast, the personal stories of those killed in the US bombing raids on Afghanistan are not told.

Therefore, the media’s discretionary power of deciding what to feed to the public, which is largely influenced by an understanding between the media and the government, allows information and communication to be a controlling influence in Australian society. Racial tension can be created by the media’s heightened sense of the news. Unlike in the US, where the notion of free speech is a fundamental part of the psyche, free speech has “rarely been a sustained aim of Australian governments, the commercial media, the public sector broadcasters or the universities” .

This is significant because it is partially responsible for current thinking toward media communication and information. Censorship, freedom of speech and the public and community right to know are all issue which come into play when discussing the control of the media. “Truth has no inherent power to prevail against the arrogant censor. Truth requires liberty of the press as its ally. No special laws should exist to hamper the freedom of newspapers, journals, books and pamphlets to print facts and advance opinion. ” This view, while noble, is not representative of the current situation in Australian media.

Although the media is a self-regulatory body, the unspoken control of the government and powerful companies over what is produced in the media ensures that freedom of speech is not entirely possible in the mainstream media. The media can be threatened with libel and defamation suits if they dare to produce something unflattering about someone who is powerful or rich. So, this results in mostly tame journalism, with the media too afraid to speak the truth as a whole for fear of being sued. Thus, the notion of freedom of speech is not essentially relevant in the Australian media, and as such the censored facts control and bias the society.

A final component of the media as a form of societal control that needs to be addressed is the issue of the wide-reaching capabilities of the modern media. With the advent of each new technology, the media’s control has been ever further reaching: the printing press allowed the mass publication of news; the radio allowed news to be broadcast to more remote areas; television added a whole new dimension to news. However, it is only with today’s satellite, computer, and wireless communications technology that the spread of the media has erupted.

Although this may be perceived to be a good thing due to the spreading of knowledge to remote parts of the world, it further enhances the idea of the lack of a balance for information. The poor polling of the “One Nation Party” in some areas can be directly attributed to the mass media’s influence on the public; likewise its success in the more rural areas can be attributed to support from the media in those regions. It is evident that the differences in the information people receive can create differences in society. “[The media] is making the difference.

I think there has to be because we are getting fed different stuff. A sure way to prove your bloody point is to feed us different information and we’ll be different. ” This perspective is indicative of the control by media held over particularly rural and regional society in Australia. By feeding the community information which is decidedly different to that of the urban communities, the media is creating a social divide between rural and urban Australians. Thus, the media’s control over Australian society is enhanced by the diverse and far-reaching influence they maintain.

The Australian media and industries of communication and information can be seen as exerting control over the society. Although this situation is said to reflect other western societies in the world, such as the USA and Britain, advances in technology and the various changes to the Australian culture have led to changes in the way in which the media operates and thrives. To an extent, the media helps to inform society and keep the population up to date in matters of interest that affect them. However, the growing control of the media influence over society has become a matter of concern.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that it is not only the media which controls the society, but also various other elite forces including government and big business. While more channels for information communication become available, there are less and less controllers of this information. It is vital that consumers of the media realise that the media is owned and controlled by particular groups who make sense of society on behalf of others, and thus have a controlling influence. In conclusion, if the media is analysed for its motives and values, it can become an informative source, rather than a controlling one.

“It was about the liberal biases that overwhelm straight news reporting”, is what Bernard Goldberg had to say in response to his problem with CBS evening news. Is it wrong for a reporter to jazz some boring news topic up and maybe make it seem a little more interesting a problem? It can be if the reporter is tending to his bias thoughts and disregarding the objectiveness, fairness, and balance that he or she vowed to do. But is t his really a problem in the media?

From a conservative standpoint, TV news tends to be more liberal because it features stories such as civil rights abuses, gay rights, and antiwar demonstrations which are all liberal cases. But on the other hand, some can say that its conservative due to pro-business and sometimes doesn’t give equal time to non-mainstream views. When you look at the ownership of many corporate businesses, they tend to have a more conservative view as compared to the people who mend together the stories who are more likely to be more liberal and open to ideas.

So where does one draw a line for too much liberalism or too much conservatism? According to Al Franken, “Asking whether there is a liberal or conservative bias to mainstream media is a little like asking whether Al Qaeda uses too much oil in their hummus”. From my standpoint as a somewhat liberal-conservative, I can safely say that yes there are liberal views in the media and there are also conservative news reporters in the media. So what is the big deal? That is what makes this world go round, different view points and different outputs for those opinions.

So for me to say that the media is too liberal or too conservative would go against what I feel is fair for the American public. I feel there is equal opportunity for either side of the spectrum to take in what they prefer, be it a liberal or conservative viewpoint. And if someone wants a straight forward report, without any chance of bias, then flip to CSPAN and enjoy the news. So for my final thought, I am glad there are some liberal and some conservative media outlets even if the news should be non-bias, otherwise TV or the radio, in my opinion, would be boring.

This book is a classic: everybody knows it, and everything has been written about it. Let me write some more. Postman’s book caused a lot of public discussion in the mid-eighties, but it is now as relevant as ever, possibly more so. Today, it has almost become an axiom of our society that the answer to the questions raised by our technological advances lie in the application of further technology, some of it undeveloped and possibly speculative as of now.

In the field of media, this has led to the hypothesis that the messages we want to communicate, and the media we choose to communicate them, are largely orthogonal issues, which is why we can analyze and quantify media, talk about the ‘bandwidth’ (in bits/second) of, say, a computer animation, or television viewing, or reading a book. Does it not make sense, then, to pick the medium with the highest bandwidth, and to develop media with better bandwidth, shorter access time etc.?

The main point of this book is that this hypothesis is wrong. It focuses on the shift from written text to television as the main mode of cultural communication, and tries to analyze how it affected our culture, how the means of communication influence the content that is communicated. According to Postman, it changed the way people perceive, it changed the way people are even capable of perceiving, it changed the things people think, it changed the cultural conception of what is and what is not, our conception of truth.

Postman argues that each medium has its bias, that it is better at communicating some messages than others, and that it consequently tends to be used for those messages. For television, this bias is the visual, pictures that change and move, as opposed to written text. Since pictures are always of the concrete, the specific, they are not well-suited to presenting the abstract and general. This makes television a bad medium for careful exposition and argument (could you imagine a DVD of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, or even a Tractatus-show in the evening? , much more suited to visual entertainment. Being exposed to so much of this mode of communication from the earliest childhood days shapes people’s expectations in communication — today, if you cannot make your point in two minutes without boring your audience, you may just as well not make it at all. The attention span of children becomes smaller, it is expected that all communication, and teaching in particular, be entertaining (‘edutainment’).

Discussions between politicians are limited to 60-second exchanges (there is an interesting anecdote in the book where Postman contrasts this with the kind of political discussions people had in the 19th century, which often lasted for a day in front of a live audience), and today’s politicians spend more time on their hairdo, makeup, and dress than on being knowledgeable in their country’s affairs. The book is well worth reading for all its big and little points, and certainly for its main point, that the medium is not neutral to the message.

However, one needs to keep in mind that it was written in pre-Internet (or rather pre-Web) time. Today’s technology enables modes of communication that are different from that of television. It would be most interesting to read what Postman has to say about those. Technologo Neil Postman, \”Amusing Ourselves to Death — Public discourse in the age of show-business\” This book is a classic: everybody knows it, and everything has been written about it. Let me write some more. Postman’s book caused a lot of public discussion in the mid-eighties, but it is now as relevant as ever, possibly more so.

Today, it has almost become an axiom of our society that the answer to the questions raised by our technological advances lie in the application of further technology, some of it undeveloped and possibly speculative as of now. In the field of media, this has led to the hypothesis that the messages we want to communicate, and the media we choose to communicate them, are largely orthogonal issues, which is why we can analyze and quantify media, talk about the ‘bandwidth’ (in bits/second) of, say, a computer animation, or television viewing, or reading a book.

Does it not make sense, then, to pick the medium with the highest bandwidth, and to develop media with better bandwidth, shorter access time etc.? The main point of this book is that this hypothesis is wrong. It focuses on the shift from written text to television as the main mode of cultural communication, and tries to analyze how it affected our culture, how the means of communication influence the content that is communicated.

According to Postman, it changed the way people perceive, it changed the way people are even capable of perceiving, it changed the things people think, it changed the cultural conception of what is and what is not, our conception of truth. Postman argues that each medium has its bias, that it is better at communicating some messages than others, and that it consequently tends to be used for those messages. For television, this bias is the visual, pictures that change and move, as opposed to written text.

Since pictures are always of the concrete, the specific, they are not well-suited to presenting the abstract and general. This makes television a bad medium for careful exposition and argument (could you imagine a DVD of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, or even a Tractatus-show in the evening? ), much more suited to visual entertainment. Being exposed to so much of this mode of communication from the earliest childhood days shapes people’s expectations in communication — today, if you cannot make your point in two minutes without boring your audience, you may just as well not make it at all.

The attention span of children becomes smaller, it is expected that all communication, and teaching in particular, be entertaining (‘edutainment’). Discussions between politicians are limited to 60-second exchanges (there is an interesting anecdote in the book where Postman contrasts this with the kind of political discussions people had in the 19th century, which often lasted for a day in front of a live audience), and today’s politicians spend more time on their hairdo, makeup, and dress than on being knowledgeable in their country’s affairs.

The book is well worth reading for all its big and little points, and certainly for its main point, that the medium is not neutral to the message. However, one needs to keep in mind that it was written in pre-Internet (or rather pre-Web) time. Today’s technology enables modes of communication that are different from that of television. It would be most interesting to read what Postman has to say about those.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (United States Constitution 1789). Throughout the history of the United States of America, the Constitution has always been put to the test. The founders of this great country originally created the first amendment to allow colonists to speak out against the British. In the 17th century, the press was accurate and informative with little competition among journalists. But today in the 21st century the circumstances are different and the stakes are higher.

Due to incredibly high amount of competition among journalists today, the information is usually exaggerated in order to capture a viewing audience. Censorship is defined as “Policy of restricting the public expression of ideas, opinions, conceptions, and impulses, which are believed to have the capacity to undermine the governing authority or the social and moral order which authority considers itself bound to protect” (Abraham 357). Political, religious, obscenity, and censorship affecting academic freedom are all equal in their destructiveness towards free speech.

There are two different forms that censorship takes; prior, which refers to advance suppression and “post facto” which is suppression after it has been published” (Calvocoressi 10). Since the beginning of the written word, authorities have used both of these forms of censorship. The media is everywhere you turn. You can find the media in many different forms such as television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and now on the information superhighway, the Internet. In the process of capturing ratings, who is the media hurting more?

Is it the people who are accused of a crime, such as O. J. Simpson, or is it the American public’s own fault for believing everything they hear? In my view, some limitations greatly need to be placed upon the first amendment of the U. S. Constitution in regard to freedom of the press because presently the media is doing more harm than good. The job of the media is to find the truth and tell it to the people. The media has the power to inform the public, but often the information they receive is distorted. The media has shaped our view of society and the process by which we choose our leaders, make our rules, and make up our values.

The media has the power to encourage people to like or hate the government. The media promotes what it believes is easiest for the public to accept, but in the process it fails to cover the issues properly. “The media can make us wiser, fuller, sure and sweeter than we are” (Orr 61). But, the media can also cloud the public’s judgments, and cause confusion and disillusion as well. From Churchill to Hitler to the former Soviet Union, it is quite clear that radio, television and newspapers have the power to change and make history.

A clear example of the power of the media was when Orson Welles’ made his famous radio broadcast about “witnessing” the landing of a spaceship full of Martians. “America saw that the power of the media could appeal to the public easily and cause mass hysteria” (Williams 25). Noam Chomsky, an established political thinker and magazine editor, stated in an interview in 1990: “If you follow mainstream media with great care and skepticism and approach it with the right understanding of how propaganda works, then you can learn a lot. The normal reader is fooled into believing the propaganda that they are being fed.

The media shapes and selects the events and offer their biased opinions to the mass audiences. ” “The media modifies information to fill what they believe the public’s interest is” (Szykowny 9). The media feels that they should act as a “watchdog. ” This causes many of the ethical problems among the media because they assume the responsibility of keeping a check on the government, by acting as governmental critics, governmental experts, etc. The media digs, researches, and snoops in governmental affairs, which eventually leads the media to speculate and create rumors while they are trying to expose corruption.

This “watchdog” attitude of the media creates the idea that the government is evil and must constantly be checked. But according to Lisa Orr, “Nobody checks the checker” (63). John Silber, a critic of the media in 1988 said: “The reporter’s work should be like a pane of glass, perfectly clear and unspotted, through which the reader might view the important events of the day. Today, the practice of “personal” journalism in news reporting has persistently sacrificed objectivity for entertainment and the personal gratification and presumably the greater popularity of the reporter.

The pane of glass is dirtied and distorted. ” “Too often we see and read, not what happened or what was said, but the personal views of the fourth estate” (Orr 66). The first attempt to regulate the media came when the Fairness Doctrine was established in 1934. This doctrine was created to ensure that publicly owned television and radio stations would not be biased and would promote their own views. The Federal Communications Council (FCC) was established to enforce the doctrine.

In 1987 under the Reagan Administration, the Fairness Doctrine was revoked. The role of the FCC changed, therefore evolving to monitor the decency of materials presented on the radio and television” (Orr 77). With the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, the window for controversial journalists was opened. Thus, America saw the emergence of two strong willed personalities, Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern. In the early to mid 1990s the audience of Rush Limbaugh had grown considerably. Radio stations carrying the Limbaugh Show had increased. In restaurants, there were areas called “The Rush Room” where you could eat and listen to him on the radio.

Limbaugh speaks his mind as he constantly puts down democrats, liberals, and anything or anyone who does not share his views. At times the information Limbaugh provided was inaccurate. For example on June 27, 1993 Limbaugh played a tape from June 21, 1993 in which Secretary Lloyd Benson stated that the new Clinton budget plan would bring the stock market down. “A proud Limbaugh failed to recognize that on June 27, 1993 the Stock Market, Dow Jones, and NASDAQ index had risen since June 21, 1993” (Shank 9). Due to the increase in Limbaugh’s popularity, he was granted both a radio and a television show.

His influence on the public was clear in the 94 elections in which the newly elected Congressional majority was Republican. Before the 94 election, members of Congress feared Limbaugh’s power. “In the Senate, a bill referred to as the “Hush Rush” was designed to silence him, although it did not pass” (Corry 50). The popularity of Howard Stern has grown tremendously over the past few years. He is constantly speaking out against people who he feels stray away from the “norm” such as gays, lesbians, etc. In the past, political candidates that Stern endorsed such as Rudolph Gulliani have gotten elected.

But because of the manner in which Stern presents his views, is what concerns the FCC. When Stern says something totally outrageous, the FCC fines the Infinity Broadcasting Company, which is Stern’s employer. In December of 1992, the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting Company $600,000 (“FCC Tags Stern” 65). But, in late 1994, the FCC failed to recognize Stern when he talked a man out of suicide. Today, “The Howard Stern Radio Show” still remains as one of the top listened to broadcasting shows in radio history. With the radio show being a huge success it was turned into a Television show, which ranks as the top most viewed show on the E!

Network. The power that the media has is derived from its ability to mold the public opinion by presenting exaggerated and biased coverage of events. The media functions as the national judge and jury. It tarnishes the reputations of many people just like the McCarthy trials. We live in a capitalist society in which money is our main motive. A journalist today is not concerned with telling the truth on an issue, but what they can say that will sell and make the most money. A journalist named Nicholas Von Hoffman wrote, “Butchers make sausage. Newspapers make public affairs.

Has that hunger driven the media out of control? ” (Nachman 26) Tabloids are run purely on the basis of what will sell the most copies. It is sad that some of the most repeatable newspapers and news shows are following in the tabloid’s footsteps. “The Gennifer Flowers story appeared in The Star way before it was plastered on the front page of major newspapers such as The New York Times” (Nachman 26). But in the process of serving Americans their daily dose of gossip, innocent people are having their names dragged through the mud. Personal things are becoming public knowledge.

Even worse, people are being declared guilty before it is proven that they are. George Stephanopoulous, an established reporter stated that: “It is our job, as the media, to report about what the public wants. If they want to hear about the Menedez brothers, the Bobbitts, Tonya and Nancy, Whitewater, or O. J. Simpson, then we’ll report about it. We need to write about what the public wants in order to keep them buying newspapers” (Nachman 26).

An individual who has been affected by the media’s money driven motives is O. J. Simpson. America was fascinated with this case, because after all, it has great entertainment value. It has a great plot, a football star kills his beautiful ex-wife and her lover in the heat of passion. The treatment of the O. J. Simpson case shows how the media has become purveyors of drama rather than information” (Gabler 12). There were an incredible amount of rumors surrounding the case. Some people have said that the Simpson case is an “American tragedy” that became the center of a media circus. Because of the enormous media coverage it caused making the selection of an impartial jury nearly impossible. It also led to having the jury secluded during the trial as well. When O. J.

Simpson was interviewed on BET (Black Entertainment Television) he said: “The biggest villain in my ordeal was the media. The media follows me everywhere I go. They report one erroneous rumor after another. The media images some Americans saw were not ones that were actually shown in court” (Jet 89). O. J. Simpson also went on the say in that interview that the media only showed the people that were upset on his released and held signs that said “Butcher of Brentwood. ” “They did not show the hundreds of people that waved to him or gave him a thumbs up as he walked out of the California jail” (Jet 39).

Over the years, the Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding censorship. In 1964, the Supreme Court heard the case of “The New York Times v. Sullivan”. Sullivan claimed that the newspaper had printed wrongful statements about him and was inadvertent. In the process they ruined his reputation and were liable for it. “This was the first case in which someone could actually fight back against the media” (Orr 57). In 1990, the case Milkovich vs Lorain Journal was brought before the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the media can be held liable even when only expressing their opinions.

This is especially true if the media is “implying an assertion of an objective fact. Everyone including cartoonists are vulnerable to libel suits” (Orr 58). The United States mass communications systems are entering a time of rapid technological change and the need for policy reform is becoming increasingly apparent. The role of the FCC changes from day to day. Passage of the telecommunications bill in January 1996 created 60 new guidelines for the FCC to follow when they are considering whether something is decent or not. The bill also rejected the idea that the Internet was the electronic equivalent of the printing press.

The legislators concerned themselves more with the broadcasting of indecent materials such as pornography to minors. “Anyone caught soliciting these materials to minor can be given a maximum of 10 years in jail” (Lewis B14) In conclusion, how should the media be regulated? Many people feel that the solution to the problem is to create a new media doctrine. Opponents of this feel that this would change the information and this country would turn into a dictatorship. But, if something is not done soon, who knows what will happen? If the media does not establish an internal system of self-regulation, the government will surely intrude, a step that will begin with regulation and ultimately lead to censorship” (Deskowitz 150).

Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of America’s image and the question of free speech is arguably one of the most complex of all constitutional issues. To solve the problem there must be a partnership between the media and the American public. If the public doesn’t want lies and gossip, then that’s what the media will give them. But as America continues to be fascinated by lies and gossip, then the press will continue to print it.

Recently viewed on HBO is a show called Strangers. In the show a man was stood up at the alter by his finance. Instead of seeking compassion from his friends he went to Paris to get over her. There, he met a beautiful Zoo Keeper who later in the day he was having sex with. During the sex scene it reveled the womans breasts and showed them engaging in intercourse (Bellafante). Late night cable television is allowed to show these scenes and does so frequently. Over 75 percent of late night shows on premium stations like: HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime show sex scenes like the one on strangers often (Bellafante)

Sexual content is not only found on late night premium stations but also on regular sitcoms shown during family hour. (Impoco) On NBCs popular sitcom Friends, Phoebe has a major problem. Her boyfriend wont sleep with her! The guy still wont put out, huh? a friend asks. The gang then speculates that he must be gay. But Phoebe then rules that out by bringing up a circumstance when she was dancing with him recently. She points out that while they were dancing he became aroused. She knew this because she felt his penis poking into her hip.

Later in the show she can barely contain her happiness when she tells the gang that hey finally made it. (Tyler pg 954-65) The trick she says was that she made it clear to him that she wasnt expecting a commitment just because they had sex. In an extensive study by, Robert Lichter, Linda Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Daniel Amundson found that a sexual act or reference occurred every four minutes on average during a prime time show (Polymorphous). On NBCs Caroline in the City, penis size is a running joke. When a male character asks does size matter? a female responds Give women some credit!

Of course not unless youre having sex. (Impoco) On ABCs Grace Under Fire Grace romises to repay her boyfriend with Mother Natures credit card if he watches her kids (Polymorphous). On NBCs Mad About You a neighbor asks Paul for permission to loosely cup his dogs testicles to prove a point. On Foxs Melrose Place a plastered Jake takes a stranger to his hotel room. He asks her no strings attached, right? (Steinbeck pg 565-573) none but these she replies as she drops her spaghetti straps of her slip. And on NBCs Seinfield a minicrisis erupts because of a shortage of contraceptive sponges.

Because of the circumstance Elaine must interview her date to see if he is sponge worthy. He passes with flying colors. Recently the comedy sitcom star Ellen has came out of the closet by revealing the fact that she is a lesbian. Her weekly sitcom is now based on her being a lesbian. The number of gay/ lesbian/ or bisexual characters on television has increased dramatically since TVs beginning. (See chart below) (http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html)

The first gay character appeared in 1970 in the UK Since then many TV shows have had characters appear as being gay (http://home. c. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html). One sitcom, which ran rom 1972-1977, had 14 characters appear as being gay on a regular basis (http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html). From 1971-1980 21 shows had a total of 55 gay characters (http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html). From 1981-1990 45 shows had a total of 93 gay characters (http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html). And from 1991-present there have been 66 shows with 138 gay characters making an appearance (http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html).

That is a drastic increase from the one show and one gay character appearing between 1961-1970 http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~wyatt/tv-characters. html). Some say television is the best sex educator that society can offer. But the message being sent out is to go for it (Tan pg 912-917). On television it is taken for granted that after a few dates you sleep with the person. In a recent report sent out by the Media Research Center it was found that portrayals of premarital sex out numbered sex within marriage by 8 to 1 (Impoco). Furthermore, casual sex was almost always condoned.

In our survey we asked teens and adults a series of questions about sex on television. The questions were Do you think TV has too much sexual content? , Do you think what is portrayed on TV effects your personal decisions? , and Do you think TV events are real and believable and would actually happen in everyday life? (See chart below for results) TV effects personal decisions? Too much sexual content? TV is real and believable? 92% of teens say that TV does not have too much sexual content. 100% of teens say that TV does not effect their personal decisions. 76% of teens say that TV is believable and could actually happen.

Too much sexual content? TV effects personal decisions? TV is real and believable? 68% of adults say that TV has to much sexual content. 72% of adults say that TV does effect their personal decisions. 60% of adults say that TV is believable and could actually happen. In the kite poem the auther says they fled to their young men…. And kissed and kissed,(Merrill pg 1119) they did this against their fathers will. Friends showing on NBC at 8 p. m. have plots loaded with references to casual sex. 61% of Hollywood leaders think TV places too much emphasis on sex, and 92% say TV does a poor job of encouraging abstinence (Impoco).

Melrose Place showing on FOX during the family hour (referred to now as sex hour by the article text). Anyone who watches day time talk shows and listens to the topics that are discussed will find it hard to reject other kinds of behavior that are wrong yet less unreasonable. (Updike pg 898-901) On the Jerry Springer show, a hefty woman with orange hair and a notably missing tooth, named Peaches tells her boyfriend she wants to get physical with another female (Polymorphous). On Ricki Lake, Brenda, with a variety of missing teeth scolds her son-in-law for caring too much about what she does on her own personal time.

She finally gets so disgusted that she bends over and points her rear at his face (Polymorphous). On Sally Jessy Raphael, a 13 year old boy named Rocky wearing lipstick and a red dress tells why he enjoys dressing like a girl while his mother sits nearby and weeps. (Alverez pg 903-910) Miss Raphael defends her show by saying that it is a kind of modern morality play which really encourages wholesome behavior (Polymorphous). The show may not be telling 13 year old boys to wear lipstick and a dress but what it is doing is just as bad or worse. Daytime talkshows raise the nations shock threshold (Polymorphous).

Anyone who watches these shows and listens to topics like the ones listed above or Geraldo Riveras show on a 16 year old girl who is bisexual and needs sex all the time, will find it hard to reject other kinds of behavior. The other things that are still bad but not as bad seem less harmful and more O. K. to do. (Lee pg 968-976) So as you can see sex on television has definitely increased over the years. It is still getting worse and our children will probably be able to say the same thing about our generation, as far as sex on TV goes. This is only one problem between the generations but it is a fairly serious one.

Since the birth of communication, media has been used to convey information to those willing to absorb it. Beginning with publications and simple spoken words, and soaring to new heights in the twentieth century with radio, television, and the internet, media have been made accessible to people in every aspect of their daily lives. With such a strong hold on modern society, mass media have been able to shape popular culture and often influence public opinion. However, when abused, the power of media can harm the general population.

Biased media tend to make people strive to be someone else’s idea of perfect while subconsciously ignoring their own goals. Stereotypes formed by the media that include thin, tanned women, and wealthy, muscular men have led to a decline in self-acceptance. The majority of media today often present the perfect body to the public, hoping that consumers will strive to achieve fitness using a certain product or idea. While this form of advertising may somewhat increase a product’s market share, many people suffer from inner conflicts as a result of failure to achieve the body of a top athlete or fashion model.

Along with emotional conflicts, those influenced by the media have encountered physical problems, including bulimia, anorexia, and the employment of harmful dietary plans. Unless reality is discerned from what is presented in certain media, some people will continue to suffer. Consumers could find the truth more easily if media offered products advertised by normal people without all the extra glamor. In addition to this, if the public could view advertising only as something to get one’s attention and not a portrayal of how one should look, there would be fewer problems.

Until either is accomplished, the negative effects will be felt by the vulnerable, and companies will continue to make their money. Those consumers given a false impression about a product through various forms of media are the ones who suffer most from our society’s portrayal of the perfect body. After being influenced by a television commercial or a magazine pictorial, certain people in this world will purchase an item hoping that the same success shown in the medium will be had by them as well. The truth of the matter is that this hardly ever happens.

Every day, ugly people wear sensual cologne, and slow runners wear Carl Lewis track shoes. Mentally, some may feel an improvement but in reality nothing has changed. Realization of this leads to the demise of many individuals’ self – pride. The severity of both the mental and physical damage done to the person depends on the case. Some may resort to extreme diets, more unnecessary spending, or a decline in social activity. After being rejected at a local bar despite the bath he took in Polo Sport, Jerry might finally understand that his appearance or personality is the problem — not his cologne.

The mental effects of the mass media’s portrayal of the perfect body can cause people to resort to unhealthy methods of losing weight to attain that athletic look that so many desire. Such conditions that can occur from trying to lose weight too fast are bulimia and anorexia. Bulimia is a food disorder caused by mental insecurities (Larsen 2). Doctors recommend that bulimic people see a psychiatrist because the illness’s symptoms, including compulsive exercise, taking laxatives, and throwing up, can cause one’s body to become short on electrolytes, which is extremely unhealthy (2).

Anorexia is a similar condition in which one loses exorbitant amounts of weight often by eating very little and vomiting what minute amount of food that is actually consumed (3). In one extreme case, a young woman lost an incredible thirty pounds in a period of a month (3). Because of the constant binging and purging, one’s metabolism becomes abnormal and one puts on large amounts of weight by hardly eating anything (3,4). Although these conditions are more common in women, men have diet problems as well.

In the past, both men and women (predominately men) who were slightly overweight used a fat burning drug known as Redux. It was designed for obese individuals, but the off-label use of such drugs began rampant due to advertising techniques by the manufacturers (Lawsuit 1). Many people, including doctors, who were slightly overweight used the drug and have experienced pulmonary hypertension, valvular heart disease, and neurotoxicity (1). Other drugs, such as steroids, have been widely proven to cause brain cancer, stunted growth, and shrinkage of the testes (Mathias 2).

Many student-athletes use these performance enhancers in an attempt to become as muscular as the men often portrayed by media. This problem is also present in female teenagers as well. To some girls, steroid use is comparable to diet pills and laxatives (3). The abuse of these drugs is partly a result of inaccurate advertising as well as the young person’s desire to look and perform as well as the superstars shown in various forms of media. How can a fifteen year-old “be like Mike” without shooting up a performance enhancing steroid into his arm? The bottom line is that he can not.

Something needs to be done to halt this problem. If media were encouraged to present products in ordinary situations by ordinary people, there would be fewer negative effects as a result of advertising. Consumers might realize that an article of clothing is not meant solely for slender women but can be enjoyed by people of all sizes. The products may not necessarily sell because of their sexy advertisements, but rather because of the appearance of the items themselves. In the long run more customers would buy the product simply because it appeals to them.

There would not be as many disillusioned people, and possibly some of the harmful activities done to lose weight could cease. If manufacturers would agree to this, it could help them financially as well. For example, in the Redux case, glamorous advertising cost the company millions of dollars in lawsuits and brand name recognition. If the product had been aimed only at seriously overweight people as the drug was originally intended, less money would have been lost, and the company could still have its good name.

The bottom line is that people should make up their minds that they will not be negatively influenced by the media. In doing this, the public can view media for what it truly is-a means of conveying information or supplying entertainment. Good common sense should tell a woman that the overly attractive person in an advertisement is a model and should be admired for her beauty; all women are not required to look like her to be attractive. The process of differentiating fact from fiction in advertising can not be described on paper. It can only happen in people’s minds, one at a time.

It is true that some messages are sent subliminally, but if consumers would appreciate the advertisement for what it actually is, much of the ordeal could be avoided. As long as this method of advertising continues to sell products for companies, there will still be the gorgeous woman bouncing around one’s television screen with a Marlboro in her hand and a Versace evening gown covering very little of her body. Although there is no direct solution to ending personal suffering due to the images put in front of the American population, there is a starting point.

Companies can still successfully sell products without beautiful babes. Also, if certain media can be viewed for entertainment purposes only, people can enjoy the beautiful bodies before them. However, if some still model themselves after Cindy Crawford or Tom Cruise, they will keep failing to meet their extremely high personal goals. The media’s negative grip on society can be greatly decreased if people remember just one thing–what is on television is only an advertisement.

The semiotic notion of intertextuality is associated primarily with poststructuralist theorists. Each media text exists in relation to others. In fact, texts owe more to other texts than to their own makers. Texts are framed by others in many ways. Most obvious are formal frames: a television programme, for instance, may be part of a series and part of a genre (soap or sitcom). Our understanding of any individual text relates to such framings. Genre theory: Within semiotics genres can be seen as sign systems or codes – conventionalized but dynamic structures.

Each example of a genre utilises conventions which link it to other members of that genre. Such conventions are at their most obvious in ‘spoof’ versions of the genre. Links also cross the boundaries of formal frames, for instance, in sharing topics with treatments within other genres (the theme of war is found in a range of genres such action-adventure film, documentary, news, current affairs). Some genres are shared by several media: the genres of soap, game show and phone-in are found on both television and radio; the genre of the news report is found on TV, radio and in newspapers; the advertisement appears in all mass media forms.

Texts sometimes allude directly to each other as in ‘remakes’ of films, and in many amusing contemporary TV ads. Texts in the genre of the trailer are directly tied to specific texts within or outside the same medium. The genre of the programme listing exists within the medium of print (listings magazines, newspapers) to support the media of TV, radio and film. TV soaps generate substantial coverage in popular newspapers, magazines and books; the ‘magazine’ format was adopted by TV, radio and now by Web.

Each text exists within a vast “society of texts” in various genres and media: no text is an island entire of itself. A useful semiotic technique is comparison and contrast between differing treatments of similar themes (or similar treatments of different themes), within or between different genres or media…. Questions for You and Me Intertextuality Does it allude to other genres? Does it allude to or compare with other texts within the genre? How does it compare with treatments of similar themes within other genres? Very good book on genres by Michail Bakhtin, although he is not pure simiotician.

Film Theory Links Wide Angle: A Film Quarterly of Theory, Criticism, and Practice from USC. Transparency: Mass Media, Visul Culture and Ideology. LisztSelect: Film Theory Lists: Groups, Discussions. Auther Theory: selling select books. Cine-Tracks: Canadian Film Theory Journal. Dramatica Theory of Story: for writers. Open Directory Project:Movies: Theory & Criticism (needs an editor). Film-Theory contact Page: subscribe! Iconology & Movies: from Yale Press. SOFIA links: from UK. CinemaSpace: from Berkeley. Voice of the Shuttle: Theory: including literature, the best!

English Server: one the best sources on the Internet, if not the best! F-Theory: good personal page on movies and film. 100 Best in film history of the century Classic Book Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality Siegfried Kracauer; with an introduction by Miriam Bratu Hansen Princeton University Press, 364 PP. , $19. 95, Paper, 0691037043 Princeton has made an interesting and very worthwhile decision to reprint Siegfried Kracauer’s impressive work on film aesthetics (the term magnum opus would not be inappropriate).

Theory of Film was originally published in 1960, this new paperback edition is the only one currently in print in English. ) At a time when film so readily employs digital means to create images, Kracauer’s emphasis on film’s connection to photography as a representation of reality might seem out-of-date. However, As Miriam Bratu Hansen points out in her excellent introduction, suggestions that Kracauer’s theories of film belong to the “beautiful ruins in the philosophical landscape” certainly miss out on what is certainly very relevant and consistently challenging in Theory of Film.

Written during his exile in France during World War II (Theory of Film differs in many ways from his Weimar writings, the specter of the Holocaust and Nazism, shaped Kracauer’s views on film) Kracauer views film as both the perfect medium for the representation of the crisis of modernity and the modern subject as well as holding out the possibility to suggest and encourage new perspectives and constructs in which to change its condition.

Now that Theory of Film is once again available to English-speaking readers it will undoubtedly take its place among the works of Bazin and Arnheim, as well as Kracauer’s own From Caligari to Hitler as a classic work of film theory. Semiotics And Intertextuality Semiotics and Intertextuality Part I Intertextuality The semiotic notion of intertextuality is associated primarily with poststructuralist theorists. Each media text exists in relation to others. In fact, texts owe more to other texts than to their own makers.

Texts are framed by others in many ways. Most obvious are formal frames: a television programme, for instance, may be part of a series and part of a genre (soap or sitcom). Our understanding of any individual text relates to such framings. Genre theory: Within semiotics genres can be seen as sign systems or codes – conventionalized but dynamic structures. Each example of a genre utilises conventions which link it to other members of that genre. Such conventions are at their most obvious in ‘spoof’ versions of the genre.

Links also cross the boundaries of formal frames, for instance, in sharing topics with treatments within other genres (the theme of war is found in a range of genres such action-adventure film, documentary, news, current affairs). Some genres are shared by several media: the genres of soap, game show and phone-in are found on both television and radio; the genre of the news report is found on TV, radio and in newspapers; the advertisement appears in all mass media forms. Texts sometimes allude directly to each other as in ‘remakes’ of films, and in many amusing contemporary TV ads.

Texts in the genre of the trailer are directly tied to specific texts within or outside the same medium. The genre of the programme listing exists within the medium of print (listings magazines, newspapers) to support the media of TV, radio and film. TV soaps generate substantial coverage in popular newspapers, magazines and books; the ‘magazine’ format was adopted by TV, radio and now by Web. Each text exists within a vast “society of texts” in various genres and media: no text is an island entire of itself.

A useful semiotic technique is comparison and contrast between differing treatments of similar themes (or similar treatments of different themes), within or between different genres or media…. Questions for You and Me Intertextuality Does it allude to other genres? Does it allude to or compare with other texts within the genre? How does it compare with treatments of similar themes within other genres? Very good book on genres by Michail Bakhtin, although he is not pure simiotician. Film Theory Links

Wide Angle: A Film Quarterly of Theory, Criticism, and Practice from USC. Transparency: Mass Media, Visul Culture and Ideology. LisztSelect: Film Theory Lists: Groups, Discussions. Auther Theory: selling select books. Cine-Tracks: Canadian Film Theory Journal. Dramatica Theory of Story: for writers. Open Directory Project:Movies: Theory & Criticism (needs an editor). Film-Theory contact Page: subscribe! Iconology & Movies: from Yale Press. SOFIA links: from UK. CinemaSpace: from Berkeley. Voice of the Shuttle: Theory: including literature, the best!

English Server: one the best sources on the Internet, if not the best! F-Theory: good personal page on movies and film. 100 Best in film history of the century Classic Book Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality Siegfried Kracauer; with an introduction by Miriam Bratu Hansen Princeton University Press, 364 PP. , $19. 95, Paper, 0691037043 Princeton has made an interesting and very worthwhile decision to reprint Siegfried Kracauer’s impressive work on film aesthetics (the term magnum opus would not be inappropriate).

Theory of Film was originally published in 1960, this new paperback edition is the only one currently in print in English. ) At a time when film so readily employs digital means to create images, Kracauer’s emphasis on film’s connection to photography as a representation of reality might seem out-of-date. However, As Miriam Bratu Hansen points out in her excellent introduction, suggestions that Kracauer’s theories of film belong to the “beautiful ruins in the philosophical landscape” certainly miss out on what is certainly very relevant and consistently challenging in Theory of Film.

Written during his exile in France during World War II (Theory of Film differs in many ways from his Weimar writings, the specter of the Holocaust and Nazism, shaped Kracauer’s views on film) Kracauer views film as both the perfect medium for the representation of the crisis of modernity and the modern subject as well as holding out the possibility to suggest and encourage new perspectives and constructs in which to change its condition.

Now that Theory of Film is once again available to English-speaking readers it will undoubtedly take its place among the works of Bazin and Arnheim, as well as Kracauer’s own From Caligari to Hitler as a classic work of film theory.