Okay, so I forgot to post my theses last week, but I would still like some comments on them so:
I would like to write about the effect of entertainment industry on the news industry. I think that television programs and movies are catering to an audience with an ever-shrinking attention span, which has a negative effect on the quality of the news. The news has to adapt by becoming more interesting and appealing.
I would also like to include in this paper the fact that the news is greatly affected by consumers who supposedly can not pay attention for more than 10 seconds. I feel like I have to prove this for my paper, because otherwise the attention span of consumers would be meaningless.
1] Modern entertainment, specifically television programming, has decreased the attention span of consumers and, as a result, damaged the overall quality of the news.
2] As a result of a decrease in the quality of television programming as well news consumers having a greater effect on the news market, the quality of the news has significantly decreased.
3] The nature of modern television programming has transformed the nature of today's news and has negatively impacted the quality.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Reality TV
To me, there are two types of reality shows: good reality shows and reality shows that suck. It seems to me that there are certain programs that fall into the reality category simply because they are not scripted, but share no other characteristics with the bulk of the shows. Pretty much, the only television show that I watch regularly that could be considered a reality show is "Mythbusters", so I am going to use this program as a contrast to most of the other shows. I have seen some other reality shows including "The Real World" and "Survivor", and it seems to me that this type of show is infecting television. People are obviously watching these shows, because every time I turn on the television, I see a commercial for a new reality show with a bunch of people shouting at each other. What is the difference between these shows, and shows like "Mythbusters" and "Man vs Wild"? The difference is that the standard reality show is selling drama. They set up situations for people to shout at each other, videotape it, and put it into a commercial. Apparently, the average American will watch any television program that has real people arguing.
With very few exceptions, the creators of reality television are trying to appeal to and entertain their audiences. Most of these shows are presenting little or no argument to their viewers. I firmly believe that the point of some reality shows ("My Super Sweet 16", for example) were created as an insult to the intelligence of Americans. The only arguments presented by most of these reality shows is that Americans will tune into any program that runs commercials of people shouting at each other. Other than that, these programs are not convincing their viewers of anything. Maybe people keep watching these programs because it makes them feel better about themselves, because they do not take part in daily shouting matches and catfights. Television companies have realized that most people will be drawn in by any kind of spectacle. What I mean by spectacle is something done by a person or group of people for the specific purpose of getting attention. For some reason people feel compelled to watch hours and hours of the same garbage, because for some reason they find it entertaining. Why? I have no idea. I just stay away from these shows and recommend you do the same.
With very few exceptions, the creators of reality television are trying to appeal to and entertain their audiences. Most of these shows are presenting little or no argument to their viewers. I firmly believe that the point of some reality shows ("My Super Sweet 16", for example) were created as an insult to the intelligence of Americans. The only arguments presented by most of these reality shows is that Americans will tune into any program that runs commercials of people shouting at each other. Other than that, these programs are not convincing their viewers of anything. Maybe people keep watching these programs because it makes them feel better about themselves, because they do not take part in daily shouting matches and catfights. Television companies have realized that most people will be drawn in by any kind of spectacle. What I mean by spectacle is something done by a person or group of people for the specific purpose of getting attention. For some reason people feel compelled to watch hours and hours of the same garbage, because for some reason they find it entertaining. Why? I have no idea. I just stay away from these shows and recommend you do the same.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Take Charge Assignment
For my take charge assignment, I would really like to study the negative effects of Title IX interpretations on male students. Title IX of the education amendments was written with the best intentions. All the authors of this law wanted was for young men and women to have the same opportunity to get an education. The law is very short, and simply states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."Today, this simple law has been twisted by feminist lawmakers and women's-rights lobbyists to discriminate against men.
I would like for the class to analyze the opinions of people who are for and against the modern interpretations of Title IX. Obviously, I think that they are, in general, sexist and wrong (especially when dealing with college athletics), but I would like to hear what other people in the class have to say about it. This will also give me the chance to hear more differing opinions about this topic, rather than the ones I choose to pay attention to.
I would like for the class to analyze the opinions of people who are for and against the modern interpretations of Title IX. Obviously, I think that they are, in general, sexist and wrong (especially when dealing with college athletics), but I would like to hear what other people in the class have to say about it. This will also give me the chance to hear more differing opinions about this topic, rather than the ones I choose to pay attention to.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
In response to "Which Media Do You Trust?"
this post is in response to the following article: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/05/live_from_londonwhich_media_do_1.html
Before you continue reading this post, you should know: you are currently reading the least important and least trusted of the media. This little statistic is courtesy of a company known as GlobeScan, who surveyed 10, 000 people all over the world by asking their opinions on different types of media. Now, only 9% of those people thought that internet blogs were the most important news source. I'm serious. Read the article. 91% of the sample thinks that either tv news, newspapers, and the radio (all of which are businesses) are more important than the internet. Now, I can't say I disagree with the 75% of the people who distrust the content of internet, because I only really half-trust the internet as well, but I totally disagree with what these people think is important. While not all of the information you come across on the internet is necessarily accurate, the opinions on the internet are real. you don't get that anywhere else. Probably the only other form of the media included in this survey where you really hear any opinions is talk radio. The problem with talk radio is that its hosts are getting paid to have conservative extremist viewpoints. they are getting paid by the radio syndicates to support the republican party and the conservative agenda, because that is what sells. their opinions aren't real like the opinions on the internet. The people on the internet are posting their opinions for the sole purpose of getting their opinions out there. While not all facts on the internet can be trusted, because of the lack of control and editing, you can learn just as much from internet blogs as any other media.
now, to answer the question given to me:
This article says first that people should not distrust the media, or anything as a whole. The author of this article says that distrust should not be blanketed over the media or any form of the media; each specific source should be judged individually. The author did not really supply any specific concrete examples of how some news sources are trustworthy and some are not. Rather, he appealed to the logic of the reader. He quoted the opinions of people's responses to this survey. They generally said that the media should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I very much agree with the opinion of the author, but his article needed to include concrete examples to prove his point. In his argument, he did not answer the question, "why?", and that made his argument weak.
Before you continue reading this post, you should know: you are currently reading the least important and least trusted of the media. This little statistic is courtesy of a company known as GlobeScan, who surveyed 10, 000 people all over the world by asking their opinions on different types of media. Now, only 9% of those people thought that internet blogs were the most important news source. I'm serious. Read the article. 91% of the sample thinks that either tv news, newspapers, and the radio (all of which are businesses) are more important than the internet. Now, I can't say I disagree with the 75% of the people who distrust the content of internet, because I only really half-trust the internet as well, but I totally disagree with what these people think is important. While not all of the information you come across on the internet is necessarily accurate, the opinions on the internet are real. you don't get that anywhere else. Probably the only other form of the media included in this survey where you really hear any opinions is talk radio. The problem with talk radio is that its hosts are getting paid to have conservative extremist viewpoints. they are getting paid by the radio syndicates to support the republican party and the conservative agenda, because that is what sells. their opinions aren't real like the opinions on the internet. The people on the internet are posting their opinions for the sole purpose of getting their opinions out there. While not all facts on the internet can be trusted, because of the lack of control and editing, you can learn just as much from internet blogs as any other media.
now, to answer the question given to me:
This article says first that people should not distrust the media, or anything as a whole. The author of this article says that distrust should not be blanketed over the media or any form of the media; each specific source should be judged individually. The author did not really supply any specific concrete examples of how some news sources are trustworthy and some are not. Rather, he appealed to the logic of the reader. He quoted the opinions of people's responses to this survey. They generally said that the media should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I very much agree with the opinion of the author, but his article needed to include concrete examples to prove his point. In his argument, he did not answer the question, "why?", and that made his argument weak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)