Fox primary: complicated, contractual

When reading the article written in Yahoo news by Martin and Hagey I noticed that the elections are more about business than ever before. The article stated some key information that is important for voters to note. The article states that Fox news has the rights to all the broadcasting of the elections, and for the other news programs to have access they need to go through Fox. The reading stated that, “The matter is of no small consequence, since it’s uncertain how other news organizations can cover the early stages of the presidential race when some of the main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden to appear on any TV network besides Fox.” This does make it a question about the truth in the information being brought up in other sites if the only station that can broadcast the first news is Fox. Not only does it seem that the information being shown on other stations may be repetitive or false due to the fact that the news sites are unable to access the politician but it makes you wonder about the politician themselves. I wondered what benefits the candidates have for being exclusive to Fox. The article continued and stated that, “when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox’s permission — which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences.” The fact that Fox has the rights to the exclusives for the candidates and has a contract or is paying them to not talk to others without their permission I think that it makes the playing field hard for the rest. I think that it gives Fox an unfair advantage for Fox to basically own the rights of the candidates and being the ones that pick and choose who else they can talk to. The article states it plain and simple; “At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety” this is important to state since the article states an even bigger subject that has to do with the makes the subject of fox ownership and the fairness of it a bigger question then it already is. “Their Fox jobs allow these politicians an opportunity to send an unfiltered message in what is almost always a friendly environment. Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party.” To me it becomes a bigger issue since the fact that these candidates are not allowed to talk to other sites that could possible ask more important questions and bring up bigger issues, and the only site that can talk to them doesn’t is an issue for me. To me it is an issue since how will these people know the important things about the candidates and where they fall on certain topics if they are not asked. The last quote that the article brought up reiterates my issue with Fox and the candidates as it states, “All contributors are exclusive to Fox News. On occasion, they will make appearances on other networks — when they have books to promote — and in those cases their contributor agreements are suspended during that period. Fox News has made rare exceptions for various contributors in terms of appearances on other networks, but instances are few and far between,” Fox News said in a statement. It is good to hear that they are allowed to talk to other networks at some point but it does not make a huge difference since they are limited to what they can talk about. This to me reminds me of the telephone if no site can talk to them about the important subjects and can only get their information off what Fox puts out how real and truthful will it be. Fox can alter what is said and no one would know and things can be changed on other sites once taken from Fox to seem different. I thought that candidates should go into this for the better of everyone but seem they do it only for their own benefit since fox exclusivity must bring some benefits possibly economic ones to the candidate.

Can the media regain public trust?

I read through this section of the book and thought that I sided more with the no side presented by John Hockenberry. Hockenberry presented the no argument to the issue which is can the media regain public trust. I think through his argument he gave a lot of good reasons why his argument is more believable. The section states that, “Networks are built on the assumption that audience size is what matters most. Content is secondary, it exists to attract passive viewers who will sit still for advertisements. For a while, that assumption served the industry well. But the TV news business has been blind to the revolution that made the viewers blink: the digital organization of communities that are anything but passive” (164) the fact that most people know and the media networks have made no conscious effort to hide the fact that they care about ratings has an effect. The news sites are many and they fight for popularity to stay on air but the fact that they seem to be oblivious to actual viewers needs has become more apparent.  The media has shown that popularity and catching the viewers attention is what matters most, in the recent events on the San Bruno fire the media scrambled informing of anything and everything to be the first with the news and with the most even if unimportant or factually wrong. “point out the corporate-integrity people unhelpful details about how NBC News was covering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that our GE parent company stood to benefit from as a major defense contractor” (169) the news at times can help bring down people that are trying to scheme the society, the ones that are doing shady business or things that look wrong in broad daylight. However, the fact that these sites find stories that are huge is to be questioned, I know that some are good reporters, some are not good at hiding their tracks but seems like too good to be true sometimes that such a big story happens to fall into only one broadcasting sites hands. The last quote that makes me think is “The multibillion-dollar bin laden construction giant that built mosques, roads, and other infrastructure all over the world. GE had long done business with the bin Laden’s” (169) I think that it is very fishy how things are show in the media to have occurred. These major corporations and businesses in the US run by well known people are working with the Laden’s that are a family that is said to have caused the U.S a major catastrophe. However instead of faulting a man that is in business with them and possibly makes them millions they simply move the target from his family to another’s. I know that a lot has come out and time has passed but I think that it is time that we really look into what happened and who is to fault for such a big cover up aka bush should pay for tampering and putting potentially the nation at risk by letting him go and going after an irrelevant party.

Governor's candidates 2010

To be honest I did not know anything about the race and I did not really care. I was so into my own things that i did not stop to look. Now that i have seen and read about everyone running and where they stand i agree more with Carlos Alvarez to some extent. I see him as someone that my generation or younger would vote for, i like his ideas in theory but i don’t think they would ever be functional. I think he has great ideals but don’t think that the min wage will go up to $15 a hour if we are still struggling to make the current min wage how will people pay others such as small business owners be able to pay $15 a hour to employees if can hardly pay 8-9.50 now. I think that if he could get the colleges to be free it would create an issue for schools that function on tuition of students but it would help many that are struggling to pay and also allow people to get an education, health care and abortions too it would help a lot of people that are struggling to pay their insurances for health care now which is a lot of people, these people cant pay insurance due to economy so lose care and when need it cant pay bills for hospital since its at all time high without insurance. I think that it should be free since they are basic needs, i think abortion though would be nice for people that need it but having it be free will open a new door to all kinds of trouble. Same Sex marriage i don’t mind it even though i don’t partake, i don’t see why we shouldn’t allow it, especially in such a free state like California. I agree with the amnesty and rights for illegal immigrants but again that opens a new door that may be a never ending pour in of people trying to become legal. I think illegal’s should be allowed to become legal but through a process, that way we don’t have an overflow of illegal’s becoming legal and we can weed out the bad ones. I know that there is a process already in place but it does not work, it takes forever to approve people that are here and hard working and pay tax, and also takes forever to get rid of the ones that do more harm than good. I think that changes should be made to the system and those that applied long ago and are waiting that have a clean record and good people should get to become a citizen and the bad ones should be deported. I know that many will say hard to see which are bad and which are not but to be honest its not that hard, the bad ones are the ones on street selling, ones stopped and investigated over and over, ones that are currently being looked for, or the ones in our jails. To allow vacant houses for homeless and voting rights to change to age 16 i don’t agree with. I don’t know if changing the voting age will ensure that a good person is in office or just was elected because he or she looked good. I am not positive that 16 year olds will know for who to vote for and why if I don’t even know some times. I feel bad for homeless but i think those houses should be given to people that lost their home due to economy couldn’t pay and lower price of mortgage to allow them to own a home again and that way be sure will pay house. I think that if homes will be "Given" to someone i think should be to those that have been hit by economy and are losing house that worked hard to get or those that lost them. I don’t disagree with helping homeless just not by giving them houses, maybe a shelter or free food and clothes at certain places. After reading up on the candidates i see why so hard to choose since i think all have some good positions/ideals and some questionable ones.
Notes:
Election-November 2, 2010, primary elections were held June 8, 2010
Elected will serve a four year term from 2011-2015, can’t serve more than 2 four year terms
www.californiality.com/2010/01/california-governer-2010-candidates.html
Independent party- running are Chelene Nightingale, and Markham Robinson
Chelene Nightingale – in lead 24,000 votes
-conservative
-former republican
-pro-military
-pro-farmers
-immigration reformer
-Promotes tax cuts
-limited government
-right to bear arms
-supports prop 8
- supports AZ governor
-against amnesty
-leaves marijuana legalization to voters
- pro prop 23
Will suspend AB 32

Democratic party- Jerry brown, Richard Aguirre, Lowell Darling, Vibert Greene, Charles Pineda, and Joe Symmon
Jerry Brown- lead 2,021,189 votes
Jerrybrown.com
More jobs in private sector
Fix education , higher education, focus on community colleges, change state testing,
Change school funding teacher trainging, power to local school districts, balanace school curriculum, increase English proficiency, improve high school graduation rate,
Budget-
Environment
Clean energy- jobs created
Pension reform- stop pension spiking and abuse, renegotiate retirement benefit amounts for new employees, increase employee contributions for all employees
Fighting to protect civil rights


Green party- Laura Wells
S. Deacon Alexander
Laura wells- lead 17,548 votes
-supports tax structure changes
-affordable health care for all
- state controlled bank partnering with private banks for infrastructure investment
- promotes statewide green energy program and water resources management restructuring

Libertarian party- Dale Ogden 17,477 votes
-Rollback of state spending
-Part-time California State Legislature
-promotes radical state regulations reform
- reduce state government tax cuts
-pro-liberty
-opposes government excessive taxation

Peace and Freedom party- Carlos Alvarez, Stewart Alexander, Mohammad Arif
Carlos Alvarez – lead 1,906 votes
-LGBT rights activist
-anti-war protest organizer
-proposes $15/hour min wage
-free college education
-free health care
-free abortions
- same sex marriage
-voting rights at age 16
-vacant houses for homeless
-amnesty and rights for illegal immigrants

Republican party- Meg Witman, Bill Chambers, Douglas Hughes, Ken Miller, Steven Mozena, Lawrence Naritelli, Robert Newman, Steve Poizner, and David Tully-Smith
Meg Whitman- lead 1,529,534 votes
Megwhitman.com
- Former ebay chief executive
- Spent “71 million” of own money in campaign
- Face jerry brown in November
- Was co-chair to John McCain when he ran and advised him
- Unknown political stances
- Lack if political experience
- Fiscally conservative
- Socially moderate
- Opposed increasing taxes in order to decrease California’s deficit
- Roll back state regulation to increase economic growth
- Increase teacher salaries
- Cut corporate income taxes
- Supported proposition 8 to band same sex marriage in cali
- Supports gays adopting and civil unions
- Supports right to abort
- Says will create new jobs
- Cut government spending
- Fix education
- Opposes AZ immigration law
- Opposes Marijuana Legalization

No Party affiliation- Alex Brittain and Ryce D’Orazio

Will Evolving Forms of Journalism be an improvement?

The reading began by stating that, “the news is gathered, selected, edited, and communicated by professionals , amateurs, producers and consumers alike” this made me think about how serious then should we take the news if anyone can be the ones delivering it. This also makes me think of the main question “will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement” I don’t know if it will. Knowing that the way journalism is evolving anyone can write something and millions can see it and think true. People are basing their thoughts on personal postings rather than news sources. Having the citizens compete with the news providers on what stories are shown and how they are shown is good but dangerous. I think that it is potentially a good idea for the citizens can keep the powers of media under check if they look for their own answers and good to help eliminate so much power the media has on us. However it is dangerous in some places that don’t have freedom to compete with the government controlled media and try to spread information that has not been given by them. I found it surprising that the reading stated that the news organizations on the main stream level would be taking note of the personal postings such as blogs and incorporating them in some way or part in their stories. I think that it is slowly showing a way for survival. The bloggers and personal media forms that are on a smaller scale but still noticed use the main stream media to have content for their blogs and blog about something they read, heard or saw but to have the media doing the same thing using smaller scales of media sources to add to their stories is surprisingly new. I see it in a way of desperation as well as instinct of survival to associate yourself with something that is potentially doing the same thing as you in order to not go out of style. I think that having the forms of journalism evolving is an improvement since it allows neither to get sloppy and in a way keeps both bloggers/smaller forms of news sharing and main newscaster to do their best since at any point they know someone is doing the same thing they are and can potentially take them out of the running. I do not think that new and evolving forms of of journalism will be an improvement the of what they already are since like i said the new emerging form of journalism is blogging and people that blog get their information to base ideas on the main news, as a result it is not an improvement if the same form of news is being projected just through an individuals view and has their thoughts and opinions added to it as well. I do not think it will improve instead evolve for people are using the same information that has been previously stated and restating it just in a different way or form a different position.

Meghan McCain interviews

I watched the Meghan McCain interviews from the “Daily show” with John Stewart and Fox news. Both interviews covered her new book Titled “Dirty, Sexy Elephant” , Both interviews had a lot in common before they started to differentiate. The Fox news interview was more to the point and factual based, the interview stated that the book was about her father’s fail bid to presidency and tell all book about her experience. The Fox interview shows forms of Horse Race in endorsement since they show her book before the interview, the interview is all about the book too. The interview continues to show signs of Horse Race when the interview brings up Joe Lieberman and his association to his political affiliations and how she did not like Joe Lieberman at the beginning. The Fox interview also shows he tactics, although her father is not running now she shows her tactics by not bad mouthing her father in her tall all book. McCain also shows her campaign affiliations by stating that she is a republican and votes for Romney. While the Fox show was more dry and to the point “The Daily Show” with John Stewart had many more of the elements in our graphs.
The interview on “ The Daily Show” with John Stewart and Meghan McCain has more elements that were on our chart. The interview had Hoopla since it promoted her book and shows photos on her on a elephant, it also brought up substantive coverage which is the PETA organization is angry with Meghan since her book shows photos of her on an elephant on the cover. The show brought up her opinions on Sarah Palin, and brought up campaign issues which was that she didn’t initially want Lieberman as her father’s running mate. The interview continued with substantive coverage in candidate qualifications- political position when stating that she believes in a comeback for the Republican party. The Hype that was shown in “ The Daily Show” interview was that her book essentially promotes Republican party and of what it is like to be a part of a running party. The hoopla that was in the interview is her having done the interview to promote her book and showing it on the show. The difference that the “Daily Show” and the Fox news has is that the “Daily Show” uses humor throughout the interview. John Stewart jokes with Meghan McCain when passing her a note for her father during the interview. The show isn’t a serious show for most of the time McCain and Stewart and laughing at random things that Stewart has come up with.

Does fake news mislead the public?

When reading this section in the book starting on page 175, the first thing that stood out to me was when the passage stated that, “Communication scholars have long considered providing information about the world to be a central function for media, they define the relationship with the media as one of dependency based on goals and resources. According to their media dependency theory, media control information resources that are important for individual goals such as goals of social understanding” (175). I find this to be interesting since the media does cover the news and provides people with pertinent information that they might not have gotten elsewhere. However, I don’t think that they necessarily provide information that is important to the individual because if that were to happen then they would cover everything possible to cover. I think that they stick to covering more the news that a vast majority of people are interested in knowing about. While reading another important part that I agreed with was the quote that stated, “Media dependency theory suggests, then, that it is critically important to examine the content of mediated political communication as such information may well be used as the basis for political knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. “(176) I think that this is true and again best shown with political candidates, they use the media to campaign and also to slander the others chances. Their campaign ads usually give just enough information about themselves or their opponents to waive a voters decision and ultimately vote one way or the other. I find it to be strange that the section stated that many young voters look to comedy shows or stations to base which way they will vote since for one it is a comedy show not something you can take serious and also you can never really tell how factual it will be.

When I started to read the section titled “ Method” there was a section in it that really stood out and it was when it stated “ emphasis on hype versus substance in the broadcast television network’s coverage of the first presidential debate and the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2004, the emphasis on humor versus substance in the same debate and convention coverage”(179). I think that this is interesting because a presidential debate is important although I don’t watch it personally I think that this shouldn’t be something that we joke about or emphasis on the hype of the debate date then the actual debate since essentially whoever wins out of the debate will become president and run our country and then if some people don’t like the way they are doing things they will ask why did we elect him. When instead we should be asking why didn’t we listen to the actual debate instead of speculating on what will happen at the debate and building the hype. I personally think that thinks like presidential debates, and laws are boring they are not entertaining at all. I personally believe that the book proves that this is true and also states why it should continue to be this way. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with politics being boring in fact I think they should continue that way for the book talks about the dangers of making politics entertaining, “ media relies on fictional television content in addition to news as people make sense of their social and political world” I think that there should be a separation of entertainment and political information. I know that the book states, “The audience of such entertainment oriented talk shows and comedy programs is often less educated and interested in politics than the mainstream news audience” (192) I agree with this to some extent. I agree that most entertainment show don’t talk about the news much unless about gossip, however at the same time I don’t think that by watching these shows it makes anyone less educated . As well as just because you watch them doesn’t mean that you cant watch mainstream news ether. I think that it is a choice, and one must think that people watching entertainment shows don’t watch them for the news but for the entertainment factor. I understand that entertainment shows are trying to incorporate news into them since they feel many are clueless to their surroundings but I think that they should keep the shows and information separate because people choose to watch the news for the news, and the entertainment shows to be entertained.

msnbc/fox shows

With so much in the news I decided to read about the plot to burn Qurans that has been promoted by religious leaders in the U.S. The two sites that I choose to see was the Fox news website and msnbc, I had heard about it in the morning before leaving to school but didn’t take the time to focus on what I was being tolled. The msnbc article is titled “What they’re saying about Quran burning plan” The msnbc story states how a “southern pastor with small flowing” now has everyone watching since he pledged to burn Qurans this weekend. The article states that many people even from the government have reached out to him to plead that he doesn’t take any such actions. While many have been outraged by his actions and his church members left him alone to avoid any retaliation action to reach them he continues to go about with his plan. He has been asked if he has thought how his actions could impact the welfare of the American soldiers in Iraq he states, “Takes no responsibility if burning the Quran leads to an attack on American soldiers” The fire department plans to shut down his plan of burning the books although won’t mention how it will carry this plan out. While the Msnbc video managed to shed some light on who this man is, where and when he plans to burn the Quran, the article titled “ Pastor who plans to burn Quran is not in Christian mainstream, was thrown out of former church” which appeared in Fox News tells more about the reasons behind his planning to burn the Quran and leads to believe how we should be frightful of such a determined man.

The news article titled, “pastor who plans to burn Quran is not in Christian mainstream, was thrown out of former church” States how this Florida pastor plans to burn Qurans on the anniversary of 9/11 but not for patriotism instead to bring attention to his “tiny, independent church” The article states how he believes that men are facing a battle with evil, and in his mind the way to combat evil (aka Muslims) is by burning the Quran.While he stays true to his word and promises to burn the Quran a vast majority of people have been crying out for him to cease and desist on taking any such action. Important people of power have reached out to him such as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and even the Vatican.While there has been an outcry of disapproval of his plans and even worries about possible retaliation on U.S troops or possibility of damaging Christian-Muslim relations, he has no plans of stopping.

While this man seems to have a small audience based in his personal church I think this man’s ideals are a threat to the mass which is American and American soldiers in Iraq. I think that both stories managed to state the issue, why it is an issue and why this man doesn’t believe it is. I know that every person is entitled to freedom of speech but I think that when that freedom of speech puts others lives at risk carelessly it should no longer be allowed. I think this has been a matter of national safety, many people will think oh it’s just one man and one church and a few books no big deal, but it is a big deal. As many have a cause for concern this could potentially cause issues for American soldiers overseas, this could cause a massive outcry and attempts not just of retaliation on this specific church and pastor but throughout the nation for no one stopping it. I think this man is being selfish, careless, ignorant and repulsive. One must think that not every Muslim is at fault for 9/11 and to degrade them by burning their holly book could cause massive conflicts. I think that he shouldn’t do it for he is not just putting his life on the line if he does but others too, I know that every person has a right to their thoughts and feeling towards a certain thing and some may not like Muslims but I think if he wants people to respect his religion and beliefs he should start by respecting others.

Are American Values shaped by the mass media? or is the media shaped after American values?

             As I began reading the section in the book I notice right off the bat that there were two opposing sides surrounding the subject of the media and how it influences us. One side believes that we as a society influence the media and have a say in what is projected in it, the other believes that in fact it is the media that has a hold on us and tells us what to think and impacts us instead of the other way around. I don’t disagree with either side I think that society and media interact in a certain way where we impact what is in the media and the media impacts what we believe. As I read through the assigned reading I notice some important passages or quotes that caught my attention and really stuck out to me, the first one is, “Schiller was a powerful proponent of the theory that media is structured by the economic conditions under which it operates” I believe that to be entirely true, we can take note of that now more so then ever before. With the economy is bad we can see the media covering more things such as deals and sales in stores and products, ways to save money, also economic hardships and what is causing them. I am positive if the economy were better the media would be trying to sell people on buying expensive products but instead the media is showing how to save by buying cheaper products since the economy is bad but they still want to profit.
            The section titled “the mind managers” got my attention with some of the things that they stated. I think that this section really gets into the question that is if American values are shaped by the mass media or if the media is shaped after the American values. The concept of mind mangers as stated in the book is referred to as “the ones that create, process, refine and preside over the circulation of images and information which determine our beliefs and attitudes and ultimately our behavior” (4) I believe that freedom of speech protects their right to influence us in the manor that they do and have been. They have the right to control and state what they want, while on the other had it is not freedom of speech entirely since they are controlling what is out there and how it is put out there for everyone to see. Although I think that they are in their right to control what they say and project to the mass population one must question how free we really to state what we want if something like the media managers exists that controls the freedom not just of what is out there but also of what people believe in.
               The section “The mind managers” also stated that “manipulation of the mind is an instrument of conquest; the dominant elites try to conform the masses to their objectives. By using myths which explain, justify, and sometimes even glamorize the prevailing conditions of existence manipulators secure popular support for a social order that is not in the majority’s long-term real interest” (4) I think that this is most commonly seen in the news, or by politicians, the best and most recent way that I think many of us can think of this is with the Iraq war. Bush wanted the masses to conform to his objective which was the war on Iraq; he managed to get that to occur after claiming they had weapons of mass destruction, they were terrorists and caused 911. He manipulated the situation and got the masses to go along with his plan by justifying the war because they had weapons and were a treat and lastly glamorized it by stating we were helping these people by liberating them.
               The last two sections “Manipulation and the packed consciousness: five myths that structure content” and “ a cultural approach to communication” have little that stood out to me when reading them but each had one important part to them that makes the reading in all important. First, was “The Myth of individualism and personal choice” which was under “Manipulation and the packed consciousness: five myths that structure content” This section gave me the most trouble to grasp because we as humans strive to fit in with the society as a group but we also like to think that we are unique and individuals. We believe that our actions, personality and preferences are unique and all our own, when in reality nothing is unique. We may think we like something because we have our own personal taste, but the truth is we are never the only ones to like something, and most likely we are not the first or the lasts to like a specific product. The media has a lot to do with building up the idea that we are individuals and yet it also breaks down that same concept through forms such as advertising. Through advertizing people think that they are unique by seeing the vast amount of products and choosing the ones that they personally like causing a feeling of personality and individuality when in reality millions are watching the same thing and several are picking the same thing someone else did. Individuality is built up by the media by giving people choice but broken down when we see others with the same thing.
                  The last section of the reading that stuck out to me was found in the section titled, “ A cultural approach to communication” The section first stated that “ we not only produce reality but we must likewise maintain what we have produced for there are always new generations coming along for whom our productions are incipiently problematic and for whom reality must be regenerated and made authority”(23) This quote makes me think of the overall question which is if American Values are shaped by the mass media or is the media shaped by the American values? I think that the lines to this question become blurred within the relationship of the media with the values. I think that in a way it goes both ways. I believe that one cannot survive without the other. I see that we created the stories that are being shown in the media, we create the drama and the news in the media essentially, but the media also impacts us for we believe and shape our ideals after what we are feed through the media. I think that it is a never ending circle of impact. I think that sadly another great example of this was with 911, we were fed through the media the type of person that was in question for what had occurred, we believed them to be the treat and in return as a society made it a even bigger issue and targeted all, while making race the media target for many believed that we were in danger when the real story was not race but the events that were occurring. I think that is an example of the media society relationship and how we impact each other, due to the media’s coverage many became skeptical and afraid which in return made it an even bigger story and subject as the news had to make race the news and issue since so many now feared it. As the quote states once we make something as a reality we cannot go back and change it, in this case 911 will forever be seen as the doings of terrorists with a certain racial affiliation. While people have seemed to have moved on and forgotten the anger no one realizes that the power of the media has made it so that from now on and for generations to come it will be looked back and seen as a certain race was to blame instead of certain individuals. Which should make us think of the power the media has and how although American values and beliefs influence the media, the media also impacts the American values to a point where it can alter the values, beliefs and course of action of the nation completely.

Fabiola got through to the blog area