The telegraph is the perfect example of the implications of modern telecommunications and how the ownership can impact a nation.
As stated in the book, the private industry model originally led to chaos for the telegraph because of all the companies competing for customers and equipment. Compatibility between companies was also an issue because each company was looking for their way to be better than the next. This resolved itself when companies started merging. The competition between the companies led to more technological advances as well as greater risks being taken by companies in regards to pricing and product.
The concept of a monopoly, where one company owns the market for a product, is similar to the system that would be implemented with a government bureaucracy. This is because there is one company that is in control, and there is not much competition. As a result, there may not be as many technological advances and developments.
As stated in the book the degree of regulation of media and telecommunication outlets is a constantly debated and evolving conflict.
A situation that mirrors the issues revolving around the telegraph is that of the internet. The issue of net neutrality is a hot topic in current events. This is largely in part as a result of the shut down of certain internet sites overseas. Net neutrality is the concept that internet services should be equal, and there should not be a pay-wall for internet speed and accessibility based upon usage. A great explanation of net neutrality can be found at: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1iHdzv/www.theopeninter.net/.
If the government takes control of the internet issues revolving around the freedom of speech may also arise. Plus, there will not be a need to continue to improve upon internet services provided if the government takes over. Currently, there are numerous companies providing internet service to consumers, and things seem to be going well. There is positive competition, and new innovations constantly are coming out. If the government regulates this, or if a monopoly were to occur, the internet would no longer be the internet that we all know and love.
My final paper will be taking about two stories that focus on the spending cut that the House of Representatives passed this past weekend.
The two news outlets that I will be looking at are truth-out.org and foxnews.com. The headline from truth-out is, “Cecile Richards on Friday’s House Vote Defunding Planned Parenthood:’We Need You Today, Tomorrow, and the Next Day…'”, and the FoxNews headline is, “GOP-Controlled House Passes Spending Cut Bill”.
I plan on using a couple different types of media research for this paper. The research that I do will primarily be under the qualitative umbrella. This is because I will be taking a close look at the two articles through a lens that focuses not on numbers and scientific facts, but more so the text and the implications of how it is written. Taking a look at the framing of the stories will be very significant for my paper in addition in to how the news outlets used their political alignment to frame the articles.
The story that I viewed on The Colbert Report was titled, “Mr. Smith Goes to the State Legislature, Then Later Possibly Washington – Ron Gould”. In this clip Colbert discusses someone who could potentially be a Presidential candidate. Ron Gould is a state senator in Arizona. He has proposed new legislation in regards to firearm control. This installment of The Colbert Report falls right between the distinctions of yellow journalism and sensational journalism. This is because Colbert highlights all of the aspects of the legislation that are clearly not safe, and for the most part the parts cited by Colbert are illogical in relation to firearm control. I would say that Colbert leans more towards sensational journalism rather than yellow journalism because even though he is eliciting a response based on the dramatic presentation of the legislation, he is not completely fabricating the story. I would say that Colbert did not approach this from an objective viewpoint in that he was clearly mocking the legislation, and did not believe that Gould could be a good presidential candidate. The bias was quite clear in the video clip.
The news article that I found that went along with the legislation critiqued by Colbert is on Arizona’s CBS news page, channel 5. The story is titled, “State Senator Wants To Loosen Gun Laws”. This article frames the story really well. The Tuscon shootings are still fresh in many minds, and the journalist takes advantage of that and reminds everyone of the recent event. Framing the story in that way does not skew the objectivity of the story though. The facts were stated, and there was no clear bias one way or the other.
This story qualifies as news because it is relevant to the citizens of Arizona, and especially those who were impacted by the shootings. Also, the story has potential to develop into something larger, maybe even the presidential race.
The Colbert Report that critiques the legislation definitely brought forth aspects of the legislation that were not discussed in the article from the CBS story. After viewing the clip, I would not be as likely to support the legislation. That also may be because nothing positive was mentioned in the clip.
I would say that The Colbert Report embodies the principles outlined in the libertarian theory, the social responsibility theory, and the Soviet theory. The authoritarian theory does not really apply to the show in that the government does not directly rule over what is aired. Colbert clearly exercises the rights that fall under the libertarian theory. This is because he says whatever he wants even if it does cast a negative light on the government and its actions. Also, Colbert does his best to inform the citizens. However, it does not exactly fall under the social responsibility theory because his viewpoint is not impartial. The Soviet theory holds true as well in regards to The Colbert Report because the government does not own the show, and it is made available to all, including the working class.
The two broadcasts that I watched of the news on ABC were at 4 pm today and at 10 pm last night.
The advertisements were geared very heavily towards the Valentines Day audience. Jewelers were especially active seeing as this is one of their biggest seasons. Also, during the afternoon broadcast today I noticed more family friendly commercials. The advertisements were generally geared towards an older audience. Some commercials focused on the consumers that have children, while others catered to the single adult.
I feel that the advertisements that were aired to the general audience that watches the news. You do not often hear about young children watching the news.
I do not really see a direct correlation to the advertisements and the broadcast personalities or the branding of the station. I feel like the station establishes that they have solid values by saving certain advertisements for the evening hours when they are not as likely to be viewed by young children. The news personalities were not really something that I thought about when I was watching the advertisements. An idea for the station to enhance its news personalities away from the broadcast would to possibly have them do an endorsement advertisement during commercial time before, during, or after the broadcast. This would also give their station more of a personality beyond the news broadcast itself.
As I was surfing on the New York Times website I stumbled upon a story involving press releases that captured my attention because it seemed so outrageous.
On January 28th 2011 Allstate Insurance company released the following statement. ”
Illinois-based Allstate Insurance said its analysis of car accidents related to astrology found Virgos were the most likely to crash vehicles.
The company said its comparison of 2010 claims data against the revised astrological calendar found Virgos were involved in 211,650 collisions last year, 700 percent more than the 26,833 crashes involving Scorpios, the safest drivers on the zodiac calendar.
Allstate said Ophiuchus, the “new” sign added in the revised calendar, was the second-safest sign for motorists, followed by Cancer, Aquarius, Libra, Aries, Capricorn, Gemini, Sagittarius, Pisces, Taurus and Leo.”
This statement was highly criticized for numerous reasons. The primary one being that astrological signs should have nothing to do with insurance. Customers became quite angry, and four days later Allstate issued another press release that apologized for their previous judgements.
This press release captured the attention of not only numerous insurance customers, but that of the New York Times writer Gary Antonick. Following the two press releases issued by Allstate he analyzed what is going on and what information is behind the claims of Allstate. His method for doing this was reaching out to the news consumers and breaking the single stream flow of news. The reader’s interactions were posted that included the best facts and answers. Also, a chart showing the astrological sign, the birthrates, personality traits, and number of accidents in the year 2010 is included at the end of the story.
Although Allstate clearly finds some sort of truth behind the studies performed relating astrological signs to driver safety, the public reception of the release caused an uproar which forced Allstate to apologize. I found this interesting that such a prominent company as Allstate that should be known for reliability would release such information that is not strongly supported. Even if the numbers and the personality traits seem to support their claims.
The protests in Cairo, Egypt are very prominent in the public eye. The previous entries on the topic speak to how popular of an event this revolt is, and the significance of this current event.
The article that I found is titled, ” Third week of protests begins in Cairo” and I found it on the CNN website. The article seems to side with the goals of the protesters. This is shown through the quote from the star of the movie The Kite Runner, who has the fame, yet also knows what the protesters want. Even though they do give a little mention to Mubarak and those that believe he should remain in office, the article quickly switches to another victim of the government who was being detained. The article works to keep the story relevant by adding additional and breaking news to the article. Along the side line there are two bullet points that highlight new developments in the story. This allows for fast, complete, and exciting news to be shared. In doing this CNN frames the story as something that is constantly evolving. This creates the need for readers to continue to check back and read more as the story evolves.
I feel that of all of the articles surrounding the turmoil in Cairo that this article frames it in a way that originally appears balanced in information, but really emphasizes the views and goals of the protesters. The facts are presented, and the information from both sides is written in a plain fashion without a clear bias, yet the bias comes out when looking at how the article starts and ends by focusing on the victims of the government and those who want change.