Both Normative Theories at the
beginning of chapter five in our text book, Mass
Communication Theory, by Baran and Davis represent the far the left and
right sides of Mass Communication and how our society should address it.
Radical Libertarian ideals suggest that the government should not regulate Mass
Communication at all and strongly supports the First Amendment; while
Technocratic Control ideals suggest that media must have some type of oversight
in order to provide the public with the best service possible. In my opinion both theories are too drastic.
With out regulation I agree that media outlets will have trouble being
objective, opinion free and have trouble gathering and reporting truthful
information. However, too much regulation will have a negative effect on what
is reported and may give the government or industry giants too much power to affect
public opinion for their own personal gain.
There must be a happy medium between the two that regulates media
enough, but still allows for freedom of expression.
The rise of the Internet has
connected people exponentially and has given us the ability to communicate with
a push of a button. The public no longer has to rely so heavily on news outlets
for important information. Do you think normal people can be trusted to report
on current event? If so, are we capable of doing so or should we rely on documented
journalist and the consolidated ownership of mass media outlets to tell us what
is important? Investigative Reporter Jane Mayer describes us as, “cheeto-eating
people in the basement working in their underwear” (2009,page 50) I think she
feels threatened by the rise of Blogging, just like teachers fear online
education.
Blogging has created a place for
people participate in “public discourse” (Baran, Davis page 122), which
educates people on topics like politics and current events and allows them to
voice their own opinion. I think the ability to interact with others, tricks
people into learning about boring subjects like politics. The information presented by the bloggers is
not influenced by politics and economic pressure like other news media
outlets. But how much of what bloggers
post is affected by personal emotion and opinions? Could it be possible that
blogging can be viewed as a regulating entity that keeps mainstream news media
honest? The book addresses some negative aspects of the blogging world that are
important to consider when relying solely on blogs as authentic information
source. Bloggers lack the resources and
capital to practice “real” journalism. Instead the book reports that they
depend on “established news gathering organizations” for content. (Baran,
Davis, page 123)
“The internet is an open sewer of
untreated unfiltered information…”
Tom
Friedman
(baran,
Davis , page 122)
An Article titled, Ethics in Entertainment Television by
Mary Ann Watson discussed the amount of inappropriate content that has flooded our
communication pipeline and how the senders should be morally aware of the
externalities produced. I don’t think that news media should have to worry
about reporting on stories containing indecent material. I think the public needs to be completely
informed on current events. I am more offended by celebrity and entertainment
news being deemed the most important information.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass
Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Pub., 1995. Print.
Watson, Mary A. "Ethics in
Entertainment Television." Journal of Popular Film & Television
(2004): 146. Print.
~|||| Sorry for the confusion, failing to start my own thread and Kali I'm sorry for dropping in on your work. I didn't want to miss the 12:00 deadline so I posted my work as a comment on your post.
-Greg
No comments:
Post a Comment