In Mass Communication Theory, Baren
and Davis define agenda-setting as, “the idea that media don’t tell people what
to think, but what to think about” (Baren, David, 294). News industries are
supposed to broadcast and publish the most important and current news stories,
but recently, many of the top stories in the media are about celebrities. On
Saturday night, singer Whitney Houston passed away and immediately the tragedy
made headlines. When I went on ABCNews.com there homepage showed a large
picture of Whitney Houston with the title: “Breaking News: Singer Whitney
Houston Has Died at 48”. (ABCNews.com). I then went to CNN.com’s homepage and
read the headline, “Breaking News: Whitney Houston dead at 48 Cause of death
not immediately known”. (CNN.com) FoxNews.com also posted an article on their
homepage that read, “Breaking News: Whitney Houston Dies at 48, Fox News
Confirms”. (FoxNews.com) Boston.com had their first four top stories dedicated
to Houston, and the entire news feed for the iPhone app, US Weekly involved the
late singer in some way. There was also
the option to watch officials investigate Whitney Houston’s death live from Fox
News’ website. With the death coming on
the eve of the Grammy’s, music’s biggest night, it is no surprise Houston will
be the center of emotional and heartfelt tribute’s, but its poses the
questions, although Whitney Houston was considered to be the most talented
vocalist of our time, do you consider her death to be breaking news worthy of
top headlines on all major news outlets?
Major media conglomerates cover celebrity
news because they are influenced on what society considers newsworthy. Stories involving scandal and celebrity are
more attractive to the public than most other issues in the world today. Baren and Davis also talk about Shanto
Iyengar and Donald Kinder, and their experiment’s on agenda-setting. Baren and
Davis wrote, “Agenda-setting: Iyengar and Kinder demonstrated causality. They
wrote: ‘Americans’ view of their society and nation are powerfully shaped by
the stories that appear on the evening news. We found that people who were shown
broadcasts edited to draw attention to a particular problem assigned greater
importance to that problem”(Baren, Davis 295). Is it right of our news industries
to inundate us with news on Whitney Houston’s death so we believe it is the
most important thing currently going on in the world?
Despite it being such an important
time and pressure current issue, many of my friends and colleagues have
admitted to not following the presidential election. The same day that Whitney
Houston died, Republican candidate hopeful, Mitt Romney won Maine GOP caucuses.
The news was greatly overshadowed in the wake of Whitney Houston’s death, and
that isn’t the only story that gets pushed to the side. Part of the reason why many of us didn’t know
about Romney’s win is because it was overshadowed by the death of a celebrity. Twitter
was immediately flooded with news on the singers death and how she would be
incorporated into the Grammy Presentation.
Both of the news stories broke at similar times and only one post on my
Twitter feed was related to Romney’s victory.
I personally find news on celebrities to be more entertaining and
interesting than other world issues, but that doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t focus
on more important issues.
In the Agenda Setting Research
article, Rogers and Dearing wrote, “What is an agenda? It is a list of issues
and events that are viewed at a point in time as ranked in a hierarchy of
importance” (Dearing, Rogers 78) The media will continue to focus on what the
public is interested in and wants to hear. As sad as it is, the news conglomerates have
to appeal to the audience and their readers and viewers are more interested in
the pop culture current events than pressing world issues. The question that this ultimately leads to is
that is it the media that influences our likes, or does our interest influence the
media?
Articles:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Emily! I like your post because I can relate to it due to the fact I have been reading up on the Whitney Houston news. First off, I want to point out when you say, “News industries are supposed to broadcast and publish the most important and current news stories, but recently, many of the top stories in the media are about celebrities.” I do not disagree with this; however, I will say that the top stories in the media are BECAUSE of celebrities. There is no competition with Houston and how great of a role model she was (all personal problems such as addictions aside). According to BBC News she is still the leader of “most consecutive chart-topping singles in the US” along with selling “170 million albums, singles and videos, and won six Grammy awards during her 30 year career” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17006704). To me, this is news and society needs to hear about the positive people who have influenced this world in some way. Isn’t it better, and healthier, than watching crime on the news?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question about believing if watching Houston’s death the most important thing in the world… no. For those who actually do watch the news, I am sure they are educated enough to know that there are more important issues going on besides this. However, those who watch the news are older than our generation who gets news from the Internet. Therefore, the older generation grew up with Houston more so than us. They do find this tragedy extremely newsworthy. Agreeing with your comment that, “stories involving scandal and celebrity are more attractive to the public” is a great example. On the contrary, “individuals learn information from mass media about which agenda items are more important than others” (Rogers and Dearing 92). Therefore, the media DOES influence public agenda. However, in my eyes, it influences those who are already interested into researching it further on their own (or tuning in longer for the news).
I am interested in your comment about the Republican candidate winning Maine GOP caucuses because I heard nothing about it. Sadly, I admit, that I still do not care for the information. Our society relates more to celebrities than political news. It is the “current trend” like we talked about in class two weeks ago. I do not believe that those other stories get pushed aside; I think that they do not get as much attention from certain demographics. Houston is a legend, so she is a different story. But take Amy Winehouse for example. If I asked my parents if they saw her in the news, the answer would be a definite no. However, with Houston I am sure they would say yes because they relate to her.
I believe it is our interest that influences the media. The more ratings that go up, either on TV or on the Internet, will motivate those stations to add more information and gather more news. For those people who aren’t familiar with Houston, will not be involved in the ratings. They will be the ones searching for the Republican candidate. James Carey says that “one of the most important things news does for the average readers and viewers is to offer them ritualized messages providing reassurance that the world will go on as it always has” (Baran and Davis, 338). Therefore, our culture has always strived to be in the spotlight (when we talked about Teen Mom and The Bachelor). The news is quite sly knowing that people dream of becoming famous; therefore, keeping them updated with celebrities lives.
I agree with the main premise of this blog in that celebrities always seem to make headlines, regardless of what else is going on in the world. This is most likely due to the fact that society deems what is and what isn’t newsworthy. The death of one of the greatest vocalists of our time the night before the Grammy’s should certainly generate news headlines, but only because of the influence people have. The people of our time seem to like news on celebrities and people alike; public officials if you will, and something tragic like this happening to a legend like Whitney Houston creates major publicity
ReplyDeleteIt was compared to the presidential race that’s currently taking place in our country, and it was stated that people are more in the know about the death of Whitney Houston than they are about who’s running for president. I feel that this is true, because most of my peers can probably tell you more about how Whitney Houston died than they can about who’s in the lead.
“What were the crucial issues in the 2008 presidential election? The United States was faced with an escalating federal budget deficit and a slowly recovering economy. The war in Iraq, now an occupation unpopular with both Americans and Iraqis, regularly dominated the headlines with news about a troublesome insurance agency and abuse of Iraqi civilians and detainees. Billions of dollars were being spent to pursue the war and rebuild Iraq. Difficulties in Iraq prompted debate over increasing the size of the military and even raised the question of reinstituting the draft. The culture war that divided the country into red and blue states continued-gay unions and the fitness of homosexuals for military duty were hotly debated. Only a few were viewed by many Americans as the most important issues facing the United States. This is agenda setting” (Baran, Davis 293).
Here, Baran and Davis describe agenda setting by simply describing many significant events that took place in our country and how only a small percentage of Americans considered these events to be important. This is because of what is being discussed in the blog in that Americans consider the death of an R&B singer to be more “newsworthy” than a 2012 presidential race. As a society, we are hung up on “popular news” instead of “important news”. We’d rather hear about who was on TMZ as opposed to what new bill congress recently passed.
“The mass media force attention to certain issues. They build up public images of political figures. They are constantly presenting objects suggesting what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about” (McCombs, Shaw 154). Here, it’s being stated by McCombs and Shaw that the media shape our views and perceptions of public people. The authors are implying that we as a society view certainly people in certain lights because it’s the power that the media has over us as consumers. Even though we may decide who we want to see in the media, the media depicts how we see it.
In this case, an agenda is set by society, and it is what we want to see. We decide what is considered news and what isn’t, but we should stop and think about the things that we actually do consider to be news. If we altered our perception of what was truly important, the transformation would most likely surprise many Americans.
When I first heard the news about Whitney Houston it was from Facebook, and not a major new source. I then looked online at websites such as TMZ and Perezhilton to confirm what was happening and when I went to turn on the television E! was the first channel I went to. I went to these sources because I knew that they would have the most up-to-date information because celebrity news is their main focus. Others though do not always keep up with entertainment news and that is where the major news stations come in. I agree with others that this story should have took priority over the other news of the day. The major news stations know perfectly well that entertainment news sell and is something Americans love to hear about. According to the Rogers & Dearing article “A problem must be dramatic and exciting to maintain public interest because news is ‘consumed’ by much of the American public (and by publics everywhere) largely as a form of entertainment’(Dearing and Rogers and 85). So even as sad as the news about Whitney Houston was, it was a form of news that was dramatic enough to hold public interest and was entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this story was newsworthy enough to be breaking news. Even though the major news stations were not my first choice when seeking out information, I do think it was an important enough to be covered by them. As stated in our text, “those problems that receive prominent attention on the national news become the problems the viewing public regards as the nation’s most important” (Baren and Davis 295). Whitney Houston without a doubt was one of the most talented artists of our time. Many of the people who would be watching news grew up on Whitney, just as they did Michael Jackson, and therefore I feel would have wanted to hear about this information. Based on our society, I think I would have actually been more shocked if this story wasn’t breaking news. There were so many people who looked up to Whitney and were touched by her music. This news isn’t something that will just be talked about for a day and then forgotten about, this is news that will affect many people around the world. Because of this I believe it was a good choice by news producers to break this story over others.
In answering your final question, I personally feel that the public’s interests influence the media. The whole basis of agenda setting is “The idea that the media don’t tell the people what to think, but what to think about”(Baren and Davis 293). I take this as to mean that the media isn’t going to form the public’s opinions all the time, but they are putting the information out there for everyone to think about. Therefore, the media has to put out stories that are going to grab our attention and therefore the media has to rely on the public’s interest to figure out what those stories are going to be. This explains why the Whitney Houston story was the top headline of all the different news stations. Our society loves to hear about the celebrity lifestyle and because Whitney was such an influential figure for our society the news is going to report on it and make it their top priority.
There is no question that the news is (for the most part) a part of our daily lives. We read it online, we see it on television, and we hear it in passing conversations. Yes it has an affect on how one might see the world; however, I am a strong believer in the power of opinion. Just because the news highlights a certain story does not necessarily mean that everyone and their mother is going to think that it is the most significant breaking story around. Studies have investigated this issue for decades, and have proven “that the mass media had only weak effects” on society. (Dearing & Rogers, 80) Whitney Houston passed away, and of course it was highly covered and publicized, but viewers still had a choice of whether or not they thought that was the most important pressing issue of that moment. Audiences, as members of society, still have the ability to make choices of what they think is most important. Just because a news outlet gives more airtime to one story over another, does not necessarily mean it is the largest existing issue. Stories are covered because they are thought to grab the most interest, however, people can make their own decisions to what they see as important. In one person’s eyes, Whitney Houston may have been one of the most influential entertainers of their time, whereas another person may believe that the presidential election is key. I understand this theory of agenda setting saying “lead stories had a greater agenda-setting effect” but I believe that news and its importance are in the eye of the beholder. (Baron & Davis, 296) The news has sort of lost its power over society that it used to have in the past.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Whitney Houston and celebrities, when someone says the word “celebrity” most people often just jump to surface subjects and concepts such as beauty, money, entertainment, etc. (For instance, the Kardashians) People fail to understand what some celebrities really do for society or individuals. Real inspiration can be found in entertainers and what they produce, especially music. I previously mentioned this concept in class, but I really feel that music genuinely connects and relates with people better than any type of media. We feel music; music makes us cry and laugh. Music can get people through the most difficult points in their lives. Whitney Houston was a creator of such music. She touched the lives of others with her creative genius. Therefore, some celebrities are not just “celebrities.” They have provided guidance, support, and even therapy. The death of influential individuals such as Whitney Houston should be top news, because they are apart of history. Not to say that the current presidential election is not a part of history, but how much of an emotional impact has Mitt Romney had on people as opposed to Whitney Houston?
It is not surprising at all that people are so infatuated with celebrity news and gossip over real world issues. This idea is going to be discussed later on in class, but it really comes down to the theory of uses and gratifications. People follow celebrity lives because they are not their own. They are typically a fantasy world filled with glamour. Some like to see this and maybe even live vicariously through them as a way of escapism. Others follow this type of news to potentially feel better about their current state. Maybe someone loves following Lindsay Lohan news to feel better about his or her own life. Sometimes watching other people screw up can make people say, “Well at least that’s not me.” In regards to the escapism idea, the real world is frankly a scary place. News stations do not (usually) make up the stories they tell. Bad things happen every day. Real world news is scary to watch, because it covers frightening, real world topics that relate to our current lives and may actually affect us, whereas where Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber went on their last date probably won’t. Most of the time, people are going to choose watching what might make them feel better about themselves over something that might open their eyes to the dangers of real life.
ReplyDeleteIn the argument of whether or not society determines what is newsworthy, I can stand on both sides of the fence. Overall, I do believe that “there is undoubtedly a two-way, mutually dependent relationship between the public agenda and the media agenda in the agenda-setting process.” (Dearing & Rogers, 88) Yes, the news is going to report on events that society would be interested in, thus society has some control that way, yet ultimately the media makes the last call. We discussed in class that people always complain about “bad news” being reported on. If most people had it their way, more positive stories would be shown, however, they are not. Thus, how much of an influence does society really have on the media?
As a media student and enthusiast, I appreciate the theory of media agenda setting. I am even willing to say, that at many times it is a tactic beneficial to a society. However, in regards to the debate in this blog post as well as the comments, I must admit that the direction of media agenda setting in present day America leaves me to be skeptical at best with the interests of the media field as a whole, as well as the individuals who consume such without much questioning or investigation. Surely, I will not shock you when stating that the rising and falling of their stars and celebrity sweethearts fascinate Americans. However, with this much invested interest, in matters of entertainment, there leaves little attention on matters that will impact the development and opportunities within our every day lives.
ReplyDeleteRecently, Americans have been overwhelmed with the passing of Whitney Houston. An icon of her time, Houston was filled with talent, and was significant to the music industry for many decades. Media outlets were engulfed in the constant update of the singe’s sudden passing, and the most prominent stations in the country were pushing pause on other segments in order to pay tribute to the star. However, while Whitney was ruling the B roll and breaking news sections, the political sector was ultimately being ignored. While the country watched for Whitney, American’s ignored a major political progression with Mitt Romney’s win of the Maine GOP caucus. The presidential hopeful was shoved to the side as the media set the agenda to surround the memory of a singer. And while I believe a death of any is noteworthy, I do not believe it should be the central focus of American’s for days when there are so many more issues that would be better for us to concern ourselves with.
CONTINUED...
ReplyDeleteI cannot argue with the fact that the media industry is a business. It operates to gain profit, like any other business functioning today. Entertainment news does this for a media outlet unlike hard news does. However, the media has an obligation to the people to help guide their thoughts to the matters of priority. In regards to the death of Whitney Houston, I don’t believe that this sort of agenda setting ultimately aligns with the vital issues at present. Sure, some attention and tribute should be made. However, the biggest sources for news today were covered with Whitney footage and fanfare. It is not my belief that CNN should be covering this sort of story. Instead, we should have been commenting on the latest developments politically. After all, it is the movers and shakers within Washington that will ultimately shape our lives. Who we put there and an in-depth knowledge of the issues and opinions of such, is important information for every citizen. Sure, politics might not be the tastiest topic on the media buffet, but knowledge is vital for positive development. And this information needs to be presented through the media. In the reading for this week a study of media agenda setting stated, “The media are the major primary sources of national political information; for most, mass media provide the best –and only- easily available approximation of ever-changing political realities” (McCombs & Shaw 160). The major news outlets were designed to cover hard news. News that will impact us, cause us to think, question; news that should incite passion, or intrigue, or even rage if necessary. Does Whitney Houston’s death do this? Generally, I don’t believe that it does. But should the presidential race do this, absolutely!
Ultimately, the discussion comes down to a chicken and the egg sort of concept. As we question why popular news is paid so much more attention than important news, we can only try to figure out which came first, a change in news priorities, or the change in American’s news priorities? Whichever it is, the one thing that can be hoped for is that substance and real breaking news returns from its hiatus. Only then will we reevaluate our priorities in media consumption. With a change in the news coverage, an aligned public interest will follow. This is because “lead stories had a greater agenda-setting effect” (Baron & Davis, 296). If this is true, then the American public will start to listen in, and even if it is not their conscious decision, they will start to think, and consume more of the same type of media. After all, the entire premise of this discussion is the effectiveness and validity of media agenda setting, which does not “tell the people what to think, but what to think about,” (Baren and Davis 293). If at the end of the day we can distinguish what we should think about and what we should simply consume and move on from, then we can be more well-rounded consumers and contributors.
In response to Emily’s post, I find her topic to be a great example of agenda-setting. In Baran and Davis’ book, Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future, agenda setting is defined as, “the idea that media don’t tell people what to think, but what to think about.” (Baran, Davis 293) This past weekend, Whitney Houston’s shocking death was presented all over the media. This story was everywhere including television news, print news, the radio, and social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. There was an assortment of popular hashtags and trending topics on Twitter that related to Whitney’s death. However, where were the hashtags and trending topics on Mitt Romney winning the Maine GOP caucus? Emily pointed out that political news that is quite important to Americans seemed to get overshadowed by the headlines and stories regarding Whitney Houston.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the media told us what to think about this weekend, I feel that Whitney’s death was indeed extremely newsworthy because it impacted so many Americans by tugging at their heartstrings. Many Americans loved Whitney and her music, personal issues aside. I agree with Ashley’s post above that Whitney still paves the way of the artist with the “most consecutive chart-topping singles in the US” and regardless of her decisions in her personal life, she is still a star and an important figure in the music and entertainment industry. This story becomes more attractive to the public however not only because Whitney is a popular celebrity but because the circumstances surrounding her death are still in question. Since the cause of Whitney’s death is still under speculation, Americans are waiting at the edge of their seats to get the full story. On the other hand, I found it somewhat shocking that no one talked much about Mitt Romney’s political win. Many young Americans, including myself, find political news less interesting to follow and more interesting to simply receive the main bullet points. However, we want to follow entertainment type stories with unresolved endings in vivid detail. In McCombs and Shaw’s article on agenda setting, they point out how the concept of people wanting just key information is very prominent. “People, of course, vary greatly in their attention to mass media political information. Some, normally the better educated and most politically interested (and those least likely to change political beliefs), actively seek information; but most seem to acquire it, if at all, without much effort.” (McCombs, Shaw 153) Americans choose to watch The Daily Show to get the gist of what is going on in political news because it is an entertaining way to get current information without really having to pay attention. Others like me know we will discuss this prominent information in classes so I will get my news there.
Overall, I believe that Americans, as much as I hate to admit it, are guilty of wanting gossip regarding celebrities rather than updates on political issues. Whitney Houston was extremely talented and popular but let us look to a celebrity of less talent and influence on Americans such as Kim Kardashian (shocking to bring her up again in this class!). If Kim Kardashian passed away suddenly, her story would still take over the news even if the presidential election was taking place. It would be considered equally newsworthy. Society’s interest takes over the media. The media outlets know that we would want to know about Whitney. The media is aware that more Americans will watch the news, check their Twitter feeds, and even watch the Grammys in order to gain information on Whitney’s death. The media is aware that to us, at this current moment, Whitney is more newsworthy than Romney winning the Maine GOP caucus. Do I think this is fair? No. People should be aware of what is going on regarding the updates on the political presidential candidates. However, do I think this play by the media is absolutely accurate? Yes. Society wants the media to talk about Whitney Houston’s death, so they will continue to do so for the time being. As we have learned, society affects the media and the media affects society.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I absolutely feel that the death of Whitney Houston is news worthy amongst all the major news outlets. Many people consider Whitney Houston to be the voice of her generation, and she is arguably one of the greatest female vocalists to ever live. On top of that, her passing happened to occur one day before the Grammy’s. All of these factors made this without a doubt the biggest news story at that particular time. Yes many of the stories you see on the news regarding celebrities contains “fluff”; but this story was not one of them. This was the death of one of the most influential vocalists of her time; in my opinion that constitutes as news worthy.
ReplyDeleteI agree that major networks cover celebrity news because they are influenced on what viewers believe to be newsworthy. But I also feel that it works the other way too. In Mass Communication Theory, it states that in a study conducted by McCombs and Shaw, “It clearly established that there is an important relationship between media reports and people’s ranking of public issues” (Baran, Davis 295). What I take away from this quote is that the public is influenced by what the media reports; so I think it works both ways. The media is going to report and focus their attention on stories that will bring in the ratings, and the public is going to tune into the stories which in many cases have to do with violence, celebrity gossip, and political scandals. The media is smart, they know what their audience wants.
In regards to the presidential election, I am in the same boat as your friends. I have not followed much of the election, in fact the only news I have heard from the election are the scandals involving Newt Gingrich. Like me, I feel a lot of people hear more about the candidates’ personal lives than they do about their political plans and what they are going to do to better this country. The bottom line is people care more about what is going on in the personal lives of the candidates than they do the actual political issues at hand. In a study conducted by McCombs and Shaw, they found that more attention was devoted to the actual analysis of the 1968 political campaign then to the actual political issues (McCombs, Shaw 155). Fast forward to the 2012 election, and it seems like nothing has changed in regards to what the media is focusing its attention on.
I have to disagree with you that Romney winning Maine was more important than the death of Whitney Houston. Do you think if the media had focused more on Romney winning Maine that people’s Facebook and Twitters would have been blowing up with “Romney takes Maine”… not a chance. The media was right to focus most if not all its attention on Whitney Houston, because she is that big of a deal. While in the long run the presidential election is more important than the death of a celebrity, we live in a generation of “tell me what is most important now”, and that day the death of Whitney Houston far outweighed Romney winning Maine.
In the introduction to McCombs and Shaw's article, they write: "Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position" (153). This passage relates to how much a media consumer, bombarded by news on the internet, television and in print, relies on such things to shape their "political reality" (153). I think it is important to note that politics is no longer a universal issue, with two or three sides or political parties to affiliate with. Politics is no longer black and white--politicians take a number of different stances and today especially, the advent of important social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) has complicated the political process for may people, especially younger generations. Thus, I think it is difficult for the media to today to accurately cover politics in a way that is appealing to viewers, that will hone in on their exact viewpoints and beliefs. Additionally, with that said, the dedication to entertainment news has overshadowed the importance of political ideas, simply because it is more appealing. I think that for many people, it is extremely hard to affiliate with political stories--to understand them, learn from them and make educated decisions about what the news portrays about them. People will most likely tune in to political stories only if they know such stories exactly encapsulate specific beliefs that they personally hold, otherwise, the story holds no weight. This is where entertainment news, with stories such as Whitney Houston's death, comes in--ultimately, these stories are much more universal. They are much more relatable.More people can probably agree on liking Whitney Houston's music and appreciating her contributions to music than they can on political issues. Political stories are much more controversial and provocative than entertainment, and people can strike up conversation more easily based on music than on the economy, abortion or war. I think major media outlets understand that concept. I think that is why consumers find these stories to be more "important" and more newsworthy.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people are uninterested, or perhaps ignorant of, the political issues that are actually going to affect their reality because they are harder to understand or accept. Whitney Houston's death encompasses the fantasies of viewers; it makes them think about their own lives and their relation to music, their viewpoints on drugs and addiction, and makes them question the role of a celebrity. When they see that some one who supposedly has it all--the money, fame, talent and fandom--actually loses it all, via death, they start to question their emotions but may also begin to feel better perhaps about the state of their ordinary lives. They start to appreciate the idea that perhaps their lives are no better despite the fact that they lack once Whitney Houston once had. Their infatuation with glamour and celebrity becomes tested; they start to appreciate their own lives, their own morality and their own values. The idea that "'the press...is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about'" starts to peek through. The emphasis on celebrity news has a greater purpose--it exemplifies fallen grace, loss of self, tragedy and the snuffing of glamour, which may surprisingly affect more Americans than Romney's political positions. Politics are important, but eventually Americans must make a clear decision about what they want and who they agree with--once that is decided, their news selection becomes more limited. But, the realm of celebrities and entertainment is constantly changing, shifting and being scandalized. A celebrity is always bringing out a part of a viewer's self that needs questioning. Then, it is easier to see why the entertainment industry is so lucrative--it is simply never boring; people want to hear/read about celebrity stories, which makes me believe that the people influence the media about what stories are more important. As Rogers and Dearing's article points out, "any effects of the mass media were considerably mediated by interpersonal relationship and by personal experience" (80). If people can relate to these entertainment stories more, and relate to other people through these certain stories, than they will ultimately be more important and influential in the average person's life.
ReplyDeleteSarah Rosenberg--Blog # 2
Agenda setting is a major part of mass media today. Though not a new concept, it seems to be more prevalent on modern day news. Rogers and Dearing define an agenda as “a list of issues and events that are viewed at a point in time as ranked in hierarchy of importance. The items on agendas of past study included (1) such issues as the war in Vietnam, Watergate, an auto safety law, unemployment, abortion, and drug abuse and (2) such events as the Sahel drought, earthquakes, and other natural disasters” (82). These examples emphasize what the news producers view in terms of importance. Rogers and Dearin’s hierarchy of news stories becomes interesting when we look at Emily’s blog post on the prominence our news stations put on the recent death of Whitney Houston.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of this was a discussion we had in one of my classes today. We spoke about how when Whitney Houston’s death was taking over news broadcasting, the tickers below announced serious reports about a nuclear attack in Syria, and other items that one would think should outshine (for lack of a better word) the death of a celebrity. While Whitney Houston was an inspiration to many, and a very popular star, shouldn’t we be putting news events like the happenings of the Middle East on the foreground rather than just letting the words quickly flash by at the bottom of our screens?
This discussion as well as Emily’s blog instantly reminded me of a post on Twitter this morning that got my attention. A friend of mine retweeted @AmericanHumor saying, “While you're busy mourning Whitney Houston on Twitter, try to find some time to mourn our soldiers who have died the last few years too. Thx.” Americans spend so much time obsessing over celebrities and following shows like TMZ that it has come to a point where news of this nature takes over the major network stations.
McCombs and Shaw note that “The mass media force attention to certain issues. They build up public images of political figures. They are constantly presenting objects suggesting what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about” (154). While this reference is to the media setting a political agenda, it speaks for celebrity and other public figures as well. Unfortunately, people care about celebrities more than they should. That might not even be fair to say in that the media is telling us what to care about and what to acknowledge in terms of importance by what they choose to show us.
Personally I feel that it is apparent that the news, like all other stations, is profit-driven. People will tune in to the news to catch the latest update on the death of Whitney Houston, but may be quick to tune out if the stories aren’t as appealing. All news stations are aware of this and therefore set their agendas accordingly. Each station vies to be the one with the most up to date information in hopes of gaining an audience because of it. I don’t think the producers of news broadcasts truly care what the public learns from their shows, rather they will do anything to increase their numbers and draw in an audience. While celebrities can be a form of escaping from reality and driving up profits, the news is there to be our reality. We should be watching it for information that can affect us directly such as updates on the Middle East or the outcome of the current GOP caucuses, not news about yet another celebrity overdosing on drugs.
I think Emily makes several interesting points in her blog. I first want to address her question about whether or not Whitney Houston’s death should be considered worthy of top headlines on all major news outlets. I have a mixed response to this question because yes, I consider her one of the greatest vocalists of our time. I absolutely believe that her talent and contributions to the music industry need to be recognized and I believe that her status as such a great musician warrants the recognition she received by the media. On the other hand however, it is slightly disturbing that the media found the death of an entertainer more important and more deserving of air time than the fact that Republican candidate hopeful Mit Romney won Maine in the GOP caucuses. Whitney Houston was definitely and important part of our culture but I do not necessarily think that recognizing and remembering her musical talent outweighs coverage of the candidates. I think if anything, they should have received equal coverage, but as Emily points out, Houston’s death greatly overshadowed the political campaign. I suppose it comes down to individual preference. Perhaps there are people out there who find her musical success more important and deserving of air time than political campaigns. I will admit that I personally have a lot more interest in the happenings of celebrities and I was a lot more affected by and interested in Houston’s death than the fact that Mit Romney won Maine, but shouldn’t I still be given the opportunity to choose? Shouldn’t I as a viewer be presented with both stories equally and have the choice of following one or the other instead of the press choosing for me? According to Bernard Cohen, “the press May not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (Rogers and Dearing, 80). The press has a lot of power when it comes to news of the world because it has the ability to determine what people see and don’t see thus, affecting what we as a society are informed of. I think it is rather scary that the press has that kind of control. As a viewer, I think I think I should be given the opportunity or chance to choose what I follow. Using the death of Houston as an example, I believe that the news of her death deserved to be aired but I also believe the press should have done a better job of informing viewers of the political changes. I won’t lie, I have very little interest in politics so I am sure I would choose to follow the Houston story but there are people who would prefer to learn about politics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is significant evidence to support the notion that the media has the ability to influence what audience members consider important and what they attach meaning to, I think it is important to point out the opposite notion that perhaps, the issue doesn’t lie in a relationship between media reports and people’s ranking of public issues but rather, the media simply doing its job by giving people what they want. According to Baran and Davis, “The argument that the media are simply responding to their audiences can be easily made. Few journalists have not uttered at least once in their careers, “We only give the people what they want.” (Baran and Davis, 295). As I mentioned earlier, I completely agree with Emily when she questions the media’s decision to “inundate us with news on Whitney Houston’s death so we believe that it is the most important thing going on in the world right now” (Emily). I do not think it is right for the media to portray a celebrities death as the most important world issue because let’s be real- it’s not. But maybe the media is doing so because we as viewers have a predisposition for news of that sort. Our generation has evolved significantly from past generations. Instead of handwriting papers, we type on a computer, instead of picking up the phone to have a conversation we text, instead of reading a newspaper or going to the library for reference books we turn to the internet for information. Maybe, the change in media content is simply another result of the generational gap that continues to grow. As rudely abrupt as this may sound I think that our generation has proven itself very naïve and ignorant when it comes to world issues and so it really comes as no surprise that the media would be inclined to focus on the death of Houston. Afterall, that’s what we show interest in and want to see.
ReplyDeleteThe question that this ultimately leads to is that is it the media that influences our likes, or does our interest influence the media?
ReplyDeleteI like this question because I do believe that our interests completely influence the media. Since the majority of people would rather see a story about Whitney Houston's death then the successes Mitt Romney, a potential president of the United states, then that is what will be played. Whitney Houston was a very talented and successful musician and composed some amazing pieces of music, she does deserve some press and should be praised for her accomplishments in the music industry. However, I don't believe she should dominate every channel and website when other more important news stories can be told. In a struggling economy the political race at hand should hold more value. Although both topics are not of interest to me I feel that the presidential race should have been viewed as more important than the death of a celebrity. This is the product of a generation that finds pop culture to be more important than the success of the United States of America. But it is not entirely the fault of the viewer. The news organizations want money. They need viewers to make money, and if viewers want to see one thing, that is what will be played, regardless of the other potentially more important stories that could be run.
I think everyone that watches the News would agree that a large portion of what passes for content these days is far from objective. Entertainment, violence and crime have flooded our information highways and I think we have to question whose fault it really is? Is it the News Media’s fault for feeding the American publics addiction? Basically what I am trying to say is that Americans get what they want and in order for the various outlets to stay competitive, they have to give us what we crave, they have to increase profits every quarter. I think Americans are to blame for what is considered important information these days.
ReplyDeleteLike Emily’s section of Whitney Houston’s death, I had a similar experience this morning when I opened the CNN application on my iPhone. The top story of the day read, “Lin inspires New York to last-gasp win.”(CNN app.) The story of the no man kid from Harvard stepping up and leading the New York Knicks to victory is an appealing story; but you would think CNN should have more important news to cover. The stories that followed dealt with crime and death. Baren and Davis define agenda setting as, “ Media doesn’t tell people what to think, but what to think about” (Baren, David, page 294) and I think there is a lot of truth to this theory; but I don’t think the media is entirely to blame from the news stories that are deemed important. In a way what is covered resembles what our society considers important.
Americans are free to do what they want and it is easy to choose not to pay attention to politics and other less interesting but very important issues. By doing so we assume someone else will pay attention to the boring subject matter and make the right decisions for us. I know I am guilty of this and I think it is becoming apparent that the majority of Americans are doing the same. I think the fact that entertainment news has become the most important content on the news is evidence of this.
As communication student I think we have to start working on a way to provide the public with important information that will ultimately affect our future. One-way to fix this would be to create media outlets that are completely funded by the government that report objectively on current events. However this could result in bias information skewed by our government to influence the public’s opinion. I don’t think this will work because of the bias potential but I suggest it because of how the current media industry is controlled by our capitalist ideals driven by the bottom line ($$$$).
Test posting - time stamp
ReplyDeleteTest posting - time stamp (should be 3:06 pm)
ReplyDeleteWow, cool post. I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real hard work to make a great article... but I put things off too much and never seem to get started. Thanks though. Celebrity height
ReplyDelete