OUr Generation and MEdia affects

Bobby Schnibbe

BLOGGGGGGG Post

            Diffusion theory derived from Everett Rogers and combined information-flow research findings with studies about the flow of information and personal interests. Rogers assembled data from numerous empirical studies to show that when new technologies are introduced to the public, they pass through a series of stages before being widely adopted by the public masses. The early adopters are the first small group of innovators to try a product, or to become aware of it. The then opinion leaders learn from the early adopters then try the innovation themselves and distribute their knowledge to their friends and opinion followers. Then after most people have adapted the Laggards come along, or late adopters, and make the change.

            This is a topic that brings up a lot of questions. Do we all fall into the information diffusion theory? Do we just always do what the masses do, do people even think for themselves anymore or is media thinking and making decisions for us, without us even knowing? When you see someone with a new cell phone, do you have to have it? Or is it just another phone to you? After Reading about this theory I believe it to be a bunch of nonsense. Although it is true with our general public this is the exact reason we create so much trash and waste in our environment because devices used for media delivery are worthless almost the minute you buy them. We are all just sitting and waiting for the next new things. For example, and for the most part totally unrelated, I helped a family friend move out of her house recently. I must have thrown away 5,000 dollars of CD’s, this is not an exaggeration, and she was perfectly ok with this.

            The Media Systems Dependency Theory states that the more a person depends on having his or her needs met by media use, the more important that form of media will become to the individual. In our society we are becoming completely reliant on the media for three main reasons. To understand the social world, to act meaningfully and effectively in society, and for fantasy and escape. This is very true, many people are completely dependant on the media to tell them what to do, and lack the human being skills to make decisions on there own. Do you think that the media controls individual’s decisions so heavily that without it they would be completely lost? How has media become so important to people and the decisions that they make?

            In the article I found, 24 hours unplugged, it was students who were without media in anyway for 24 hours. They began talking about how it is an addiction and that they are lost without media. People are so engulfed in media that they forget what life would be like without it. Aspects of life like trust and reliability have lost all value. Our parents grew up making plans with one and other. IF you were suppose to meet someone somewhere, you had to meet them there, you couldn’t text them at the last minute to change plans or change locations, you had to trust the person and be reliable. This is something our generation has lost. Comparing this to an article that I can more closely relate to was the article, Negative affects of the media on teenagers. Media influence's peoples every move. It is making our generation less intelligent and bringing us all down as the generation that soon has to run our country. Do you guys agree or disagree? IS media doing too much? Have we forgotten how life is truly meant to be lived, or is facebook, twitter, and pop culture more important than our success as a generation?

Sources

http://withoutmedia.wordpress.com/

http://www.ehow.com/info_8477929_negative-effects-media-teenagers.html

Mass Communication Theory, Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth Addition  Stanley J. Baron, Dennis K. Davis

            

Facebook and social media marketing

As a college student, what is the first thing you do when you open your computer? Don’t say its check CNN or another news outlet because we know that is false. You open up your Facebook, Twitter, E-mail or blog, first right? Unless you have already been habitually checking it on your smartphone, still even then, it is the first tab open. But when you look at your Facebook do you realize all the marketing that is going on just on our news feed? Do you realize that the ads are based on your “likes”, interests and Internet browsing history? Well, they are. But how do these companies know you will be interested in this product and that product based on your age and interests? They know this because they use the social marketing theory.

           

            According to Baran and Davis the social marketing theory is a “collection of middle-range theories concerning the promotion of socially valuable information”(284). What this really means is that they have methods for how to stimulate interest, create audience awareness, targeting, and reinforcing the messages that they want to convey. Instantly while reading this chapter I thought of the value of a brand name and facebook. In Angela Carrol’s Article “Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement” she discussed the ever-growing importance of the brand name, but also the shift in the brand paradigm. She says:

“Brands have evolved to represent much more than the traditional markers of quality, trust and reliability to consumers. Brands have become embedded in the consumer psyche and offer consumers the opportunity for self-expression, self-realisation and self-identity”(Carrol 146).

We define ourselves by what we wear. If you wear a polo you are a prep, if you wear a penny you are a jock, a Slipknot t-shirt automatically makes you emo, Abercrombie makes you rich and Dickeys and a flannel makes you a redneck. Everything we do, the music we listen to, the way we dress, and the format of our Facebook page is all in our social identity. We all want to belong. But how would a company target all of these different groups of people to enjoy their product? If you like Ke$ha you are more than likely going to buy a Baby G watch, wear Chanel because of Keira Knightley, use old spice because of that crazy, hilarious or sexy guy, and wear Sean Jean because you like P. Diddy. It is all about forming your identity. The buisnesses have picked up on that, for the fact you are more likely to look at something if a friend likes it, more likely to buy something if a celebrity or popular person wears it, or go to a diner, drive in, or dive that Guy Fieri went to.

            In an article in Social Media Marketing Magazine, Debi Kleinman, President of MITX (Massachuettes Innovation & Technology Exchange) discusses how social media is changing the face of modern marketing. She quotes one of her co-workers John Fichera who says “Social media makes marketing personal. For example, if you see that one of your friends is into a certain product or brand (e.q., via Facebook), then this can spark your interest to at least research the product, raising name recognition” (Kleinman 1). This sparked an idea in myself. When on your own Facebook news page, do you look at things because it says your friends liked it? Do you end up liking it yourself? The way brand names used to be created is very different than now. “The modern social media strategist must be part technologist and part behaviorist. As marketing leaders, we must be willing to experiment with and implement technology while studying the changes in human behavior that come with new and evolving social media adoption” (Kleinman 1). Debi makes a good point, which is why the social marketing theory still works. It must evolve with the time, the likes and dislikes of the target audiences, and if you look deeper into Baran and Davis, you will realize that it is something they also look into. So how would you use social media to implement the social marketing theory?

http://www.smmmagazine.com/blog/2011/11/30/will-social-media-change-the-face-of-modern-marketing/

The Power of Celebrity Endorsements

Post 1

Ever since the beginning of entertainment, celebrities have always linked their name to various goods and services. Celebrity endorsements have strengthened the branding process through “gaining and keeping attention and in creating favorable associations leading to positive brand knowledge and distinct brand images.” (Carroll 150) Celebrity endorsements help companies bring out the connection between the product and the consumer, as well as attaching a certain image to the product itself. According to Carroll, there are two models of the branding tool to consider before signing on with a celebrity endorser, which falls to The Source Credibility and The Source Attractiveness models. (Carroll 150) The attractiveness of the celebrity is not only referring to their physical appearance, but also their overall physical and mental competence. “Consumers generally have a more positive response to attractive people and the effectiveness of the message depends on the similarity, familiarity and liking of the endorser.” (Carroll 151) In terms of credibility, it’s necessary for such celebrity to hold a positive image through expertise and trustworthiness, so companies don’t look for endorses who are attached to a negative scandal (Tiger Woods, for example) The celebrity’s credibility factor has a huge influence over the acceptance of the product with consumers. “Trust is reflected in the confidence in the general believability of the endorser and message. Expertise refers to product knowledge and thus the validity of claims” (Carroll 150) Additionally, there needs to be a connection through identity, personality, and lifestyle--the audience needs to feel this connection in order to believe in whatever message the company is trying to sell through their product. For example, Nike is very well known for celebrity endorsements, such as Michael Jordan, who created an image with Nike through a consistent contract so much so that they launched Air Jordan’s, a line of Nike sport shoes. Are you more willing to buy a product based on the attractiveness of the celebrity endorser? How much does their attractiveness and credibility influence a consumer to buy a product, or do consumers not even find a connection between the celebrity and the product?

Celebrity endorsements can be placed under the fourth feature of the social marketing theory, explained by Baran and Davis, where endorsements are a successful method for cultivating images and impressions of people, products, or services. Solely attaching the name of a celebrity to a product will generate activity and business through a cultivated image of the product, if we remember that a certain celebrity uses the product and receives positive results, we are more willing to buy the product for ourselves. The findings of a Harvard Business School study found that advertisements of a celebrity of an endorsed company can go up as much as 20%. According to the article, “Celebrity Endorsements Carry Weight in Advertising”, celebrity endorsements have become such a stable branding tool that a Celebrity BDI was created. A Celebrity BDI is an “independent index for brand marketers and agencies that determines a celebrity’s ability to influence endorsements” that evaluates celebrities based on “their awareness, appeal and relevance to a brand’s image, and influence on consumers.” (Marketwire) Celebrities hold so much power in now the advertising industry, but what is it about celebrities that can sell more products than standard advertising? “The celebrity system is primarily an American cultural enterprise and that Americans identify especially strongly with celebrities and are thus more willing to accept and internalize endorsement messages” (Carroll 151) Why are we more willing to buy products that celebrities are endorsing? Can you think of any other company/celebrity endorsement contracts that have found to be successful? What about any celebrity endorsements that have had a reverse effect for the product?

(Post Continued in first comment)

Celebrity Twitter Influence on Everyday Society (and on Our Own Twitter Practices)

Twitter has significantly influenced our society in regards to celebrities, every day life, and how we express ourselves. Instead of having to watch television or pick up a tabloid at the check out line for celebrity news, one can simply create a Twitter account and follow their favorite celebs, obtaining news about tours, books, personal opinions, and even witness disputes between fellow celebs. Yes, Twitter seems like it is this new, innovative, and wonderful creation, however, there are definitely some bugs in user practices that make it more questionable- especially celebrity behavior.  
            Although “the distinction between micro-celebrity and ‘real’ celebrity might once have been a question of popularity, approachability, or mainstream status,” celebrities are using their Twitter accounts more and more to “amp up their popularity over the Web.” (Marwick & Boyd, 141) Through examining this behavior, one can understand the real “practice” of celebrity. Twitter is seemingly a playground for the elite and famous to “practice” their celebrity skills.
            With these “practices”, certain issues arise. One of the larger issues with celebrities and their Twitter accounts is the authenticity of them, as “not all ‘celebrity’ accounts are authored by the celebrity in question.” (Marwick & Boyd, 142) Along with this, some celebrity accounts are strictly used for publicity purposes only, such as promoting a new line of perfume, a film release, etc. Do these situations make a Twitter less authentic? Would a user be less likely to follow a certain celebrity if they knew it was not really run by the celeb on their own? Marwick and Boyd make a point saying that “persona is not entirely the point; it is the uncertainty [of who authors the account] that creates pleasure for the celebrity-watcher on Twitter.” (Marwick & Boyd, 144) Celebrity followers would want to hear what they have to say straight from the horses’ mouth- not from their manager, therefore I don’t see how strong this point really is.
            In regards to actual Twitter behavior, celebrities practice the idea of “frontstage” and “backstage” posts, where frontstage information is seen as “professional communication” whereas backstage posts include private and “intimate” details about ones’ life. (Marwick & Boyd 142) As the years have gone on, and social media has developed, celebrities are noticeably more comfortable with posting “backstage” details. Do celebrities do this to seem more honest and real? Or do they post this type of information purely for damage control purposes or to let their fans know of certain news before it breaks in the unreliable and image damaging tabloids? I wonder if celebrities tweet about their break ups and divorces on Twitter mainly to contrast what tabloids say or to prevent rumors from happening or because they actually want to share their personal lives with their “beloved” fans.
            Celebrities are the most followed users on Twitter, as they use the site as a means of practicing the social marketing theory, by making “people aware of their existence.” (Baran & Davis 284) Their followers see what they tweet, how they say it, and how often they say the things that they do. Their actions on the site definitely have an influence on how some users tweet. Can non-celebs “practice” celebrity? Of course they can. Celebs and non-celebs tweet the same type of information, but it is more of how a user tweets that is influenced, more specifically in regards to the frontstage and backstage information. Just as the celebs are doing, everyday normal people are posting backstage information more often and potentially feel more comfortable doing so, because celebrities are doing it. However, posting too much backstage information/arguing via social network can get a user in trouble with work, co-workers, friends, family, etc., just as a celebrity can get in trouble with their managers, tabloids, etc. Some users even tweet so often, potentially thinking that their opinion, what they are doing, and how funny they think they are is comparable to a celebrity. Come on, 50 tweets a day? Get real.
            Celebrity tweets may be influencing how users physically use the site, but celebrities themselves are not necessarily influencing the opinions of users when they tweet. Twitter is an opinion leader’s dream come true. If they find an “innovation useful, they encourage their friends, [of course in 140 characters or less]- the opinion followers” also known as their Twitter followers. (Baran & Davis 282) Most people categorize celebrities in this group of opinion leaders, however, how influential are their tweets exactly? A study completed at Northwestern University concluded “that while many celebrities might have millions of people following their lives on the web, online influence in fact came from less known ‘experts.’” (Olenski) Their findings suggest that although the celebrity tweeting turned Twitter into an “international phenomenon”, celebrity tweets are actually ignored by their millions of followers. So who is getting all of the attention then? It is the “lower profile” users who are experts in their fields who are seen as more influential. (Olenski) However, if a celebrity tweets about their field of work, they may have some more credibility.
            Twitter, although originally questioned, is clearly hear to stay for us to tweet a million times a day, or to just sit back and watch what topics trend. It is an interesting tool to examine celebrity and non-celebrity behavior and practices. Twitter puts both the information/innovation diffusion theory and social marketing theory into practice and has the ability to keep society moving forward with topics that actually do matter, not just what Britney Spears’ manager thinks she had for lunch this afternoon.

Works Cited:

1. Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.

2. Marwick, Alice and Danah Boyd, “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter,” Convergence 17.2 (2011): 139 – 158. 

3. Olenski, Steve. “Study Finds Celebrities Have Little Influence,” Social Media Today. Social Media Today LLC. , 29 Sept 2010.  Web.  26 Feb 2012. 

Normative Theories, The Blogging world and Ethical Media

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

New Media and "Customizable News"

Commenting on the firing of Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, BBC News North American editor Mark Mardell writes, “Left and right live in their little ghettoes of the mind, unwilling to listen to anything that doesn’t reinforce their own views.” He also adds that “the split in the media makes America feel like it is dividing into two armed camps.” The “split” Mardell is referring to is the divide between the liberal and conservatives, which is more evident during election season. And, as Marc Fisher of The Washington Post observes, “it’s clear… the revolution in how Americans get their news has dramatically altered the political process.” Fisher is referring to what he writes “professors at Stanford and UCLA… dubbed… ‘selective exposure’”, and the revolutionary way of getting campaign news is through new media – like blogs, Twitter and Facebook.

In his article “All the news that confirms your views”, Fisher recounts the story of three individuals – Dianne Belsom, Joe Akers Jr. and Flynn McKinney – and their news-consumption habits ahead of the Republican Party primaries in South Carolina. He begins by noting how Belsom sifts through her Facebook newsfeed, not a newspaper, to receive political updates from Newt Gingrich’s campaign trail. He shares how Akers is always on Twitter receiving the latest political news and retweeting (or sharing) those links with nearly 800 followers. By limiting the scope of their news availability, Fisher writes that “citizens are tucking themselves inside information silos”, sort of like a “political echo chamber.” He adds that this creates “an electorate in which [both sides] often not only have their own opinions but also their own sets of facts, making it harder than ever to approach common ground.”  Journalist Bree Nordenson echoes that sentiment when she said, “Personalized home pages, newsfeeds, and e-mail alerts… lead us to create what sociologist Todd Gitlin disparagingly referred to as ‘my news, my world.’ Serendipitous news… is far less frequent in a world of TiVo and online customization tools.” (Baran and Davis 121)

How exactly is the new media impacting news consumption, and is it necessarily a negative impact?

Joseph C. Nerone declared that “the power of the press does not consist of promoting specific ideas or images; [it] is the ability of the major media to be the gatekeepers of the public sphere.” (Nerone 192). By circumventing traditional, objective news outlets, are news consumers rejecting major media in favor of outlets that do promote specific ideas? Is their embracing ideology-centric news equivalent to a general a rejection for traditional news or an aberration? Is there a correlation between the preference for “customized” news and the popularity of blogs? In Baran and Davis, we are told that the search engine Technorati identifies 1.5 million blogs updated on a weekly basis. Some of those blogs are identified as “citizen publishers”, “stand-alone journalists” and “networks of dedicated amateurs who do meaningful journalism.” (Baran and Davis 122) The influence blogging-as-citizen-journalism on traditional news is evident when “most American media outlets allow – even encourage – their writers to maintain blogs to better engage readers.” (Baran and Davis 123) They note how traditional publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Atlantic magazine all have highly popular blogs now.

But is consuming “customized” news contributing to the idea of “tunnel-vision”? In Fisher’s article, we are told that Akers “was never so deep in his information bubble to block out alternative ideas”, adding that although Akers is a Democratic Party official he was considering supporting a slew of Republican candidates before finally opting to stick with President Obama. Belsom admits, “I guess I mostly see what I agree with.” (Fisher) Fisher writes how Belsom’s home is filled with books on “creationism… [and] books warning against pornography, ‘the gay agenda’ and radical Islam” while her daughter is home-schooled because Belsom believes “government schools have an anti-Christian worldview.” (Fisher) It is clear that while both of them share limited approaches to how they receive their news, they interpret it differently as well: Akers uses it to reinforce his political beliefs but still keep them open while Belsom consumes the news that will line up with her religious beliefs and keep them closed.

Denis McQuail stated that “[the media’s] obligations are mainly to be met by setting high or professional standards of informativeness, truth, accuracy, objectivity and balance.” (Baran and Davis 116) With personalized news services, some of those obligations are rejected soundly. But those same services fulfill McQuail’s obligation to “be pluralist and reflect the diversity of… society, giving access to various points of view and to right of reply.” (Baran and Davis 116) Can both obligations be fulfilled simultaneously with new media?

New media outlets make the consumption of specific news content much easier and simpler, and can effectively replace the reach of major media outlets such as newspapers and television. Mardell opines, “It is always better for your mental and political health to throw things at your TV… than nod sagely as it confirms your prejudices.” However, if new media is the one reaffirming prejudices or beliefs, how does one counter it and is it necessary to do so?

References:

Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis. “Normative Theories of Mass Communication.” Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. 96-131. Print.

Nerone, John C. “Social Responsibility Theory.” McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 2002. 183-195. Print.

Mardell, Mark. “Narrowing of the American Mind?” BBC World News US & Canada 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17079971

Fisher, Marc.  “All the news that confirms your views.” The Washington Post 21 Jan. 2012, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web.  20 Feb. 2012. http://proquest.umi.com.libraryproxy.quinnipiac.edu/pqdlink?did=2565703901&Fmt=3&clientId=8920&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Social Responsibility Theory & Professional Journalism

This week, we have examined the values, ethics and professionalism within journalism and the media at present. For me, what ultimately emerged is the conflict between the social responsibility theory and the changing dynamic of professionalism in journalism, especially with an increased internet and social media presence. Additionally, there has been a merging of media outlets. Today, a viewer can go from online, to television, to print and ultimately find the same quality of journalistic work. This presents a problem. Today, which is ultimately more important, the level of professionalism in the news being reported, or the rapid delivery of news to the public?

At it’s conception, the social responsibility theory, “put control of media content in the hands of media practitioners, who were expected to act in the public interest” (Baran & Davis 129). Ultimately, it is the individuals who work within the media who are in charge of delivering news to the public. Ideally, and until recently, journalists would do such in a professional, trustworthy manner. This practice fulfilled both sides of the issues. However, our time has changed, and the press has had to adjust accordingly. Today, we see the media attempting to juggle professionalism and social responsibility all while staying ethical. Television and newer media has had a difficult time adjusting and finding this balance. Watson acknowledges the influences that television has on its viewers and how they react and interact within their society (146). With this, the professionals within the television industry have had to change in order to stay current and to vibe with the audience, but still performing their duties and staying true to traditional journalistic values.

Most recently, we saw this difficult dynamic executed through the passing of Whitney Houston. The star’s death broke on what most would assume to be an unprofessional journalistic source, Twitter. This announcement occurred on the social media circuit 27 minutes before it aired or debuted on major press outlets (Anderson). Almost instantly, the news was picked up by popular entertainment bloggers, who are in most fashions less professional journalists. Within this example, we see that the social responsibility theory and the demand for public knowledge took priority over the need for professionalism and reliability. As a society, that has had a tradition of rewarding true journalism and holding the ethics and professional of such practice in high regard, how can we allow ourselves to be trapped in a frame of mind where the fast delivery of news is more valuable than the accuracy and legitimacy of such information? How would a true figure of trusted and professional journalism, like Walter Cronkite, feel to know that news is being broken via the Internet instead of a legitimate news source? Is the most trusted man in America rolling in grave? Why is there so much more emphasis on the constant update of unreliable news instead of the deliverance of correct, but less timely news updates? My fear is that the stream of superfluous updates will soon overshadow the traditional structure of delivering information and bloggers like Perez Hilton will quickly become the new face of true journalism.

My argument is no to say there is not a place for less structured or professional outlets of information within the media. Rather, the point is to make the distinction between the types of areas of preference of where to get information. I believe that reliable information is much more valuable than a constant flow of less trustworthy information. Perhaps, that thinking is too tradition for the media market that is developing. But in a world where knowledge is power, I stand firm in my thinking that confirmed and accurate information is stronger than nontraditional fast spreading information. Even in a society where efficiency is number one, credibility is still key. Professionalism should still prevail over popularity, and accurate news should conquer over weaker journalism.

Anderson 12, February. "Twitter Breaks Whitney Houston Death News 27 Minutes Before Press." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. Mashable. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. "Normative Theories of Mass Communication." Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012. 96-131. Print.

Watson, Mary A. "Ethics in Entertainment Television." Journal of Popular Film & Television 31.4 (2004): 146-48. Print.

Media Professionals and the Social Responsibility Theory

Ever since the advent of media conglomerates, most notably Hearst and Pulitzer, who controlled and owned newspapers, wire services, radio, magazines, etc. (Nerone 184), the monopolization of the media has concerned a number of people. John C, Nerone points out that “there are tendencies toward monopolization in the media, that the people or the public are inattentive and not concerned with the rights or interests of those unlike themselves, and that commercialization produces a debased culture and a dangerously selfish politics. In response, social responsibility theory proposes that the media take it upon themselves to elevate their standards, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and disinterested guidance they need to govern themselves” (Nerone 185). This idea that self-government should be taken into consideration; that fair, balanced and responsible journalism, coupled with what the public audience will take interest in the most, should be essential to news and reporting, has been crucial to social responsibility theory. This idea, however, comes with a number of strings attached. For example, as Baran and Davis show, media professionals have the tough responsibility of weeding through certain material when putting together news stories. In the wake of Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, NBC News received video, photographs and a written “manifesto” from the murderer, and had to decide what was appropriate to show viewers, what could possibly offend them, and what impact it would have on them. Many other journalists did not agree with their decision to air the footage, as they believed it would negatively influence other “‘deranged’” people to become a “copycat killer” (Baran & Davis, 96). Was this a ploy to just simply earn more ratings from viewers, or was it an honest act of good journalism? Was this material necessary in order for the viewer to make an informed decision about greater issues at hand, such as campus safety, gun ownership laws and mental illness? Or did it just provide graphic, disturbing images inappropriate for families watching the news? Questions such as these relate to what social responsibility entails, and Baran & Davis’ inquiries (“Should media do something more than merely distribute whatever content will earn them the greatest profits in the shortest time?” (97)) can relate in a number of ways to the media coverage of Whitney Houston’s recent death.

As a class, we have already agreed that Houston’s death has been covered extensively because of her status as a pop icon: she infiltrated the entertainment business and her death is profitable for news sources. However, with the television airing of her funeral on Saturday, February 18, the concept of social responsibility comes to mind once again. Besides the funeral services being aired on national television, news sources such as CNN posted photographic and video coverage on their website to accompany their article “Whitney Houston’s journey ‘home’ ends,” written by Chelsea J. Carter and Jason Carroll. In the article, the authors honed in on the funeral being a televised celebration of the late singer’s life, quoting celebrities such as Kevin Costner and Alicia Keys as they knew Houston. It is clear that the article and the footage were used to draw viewers’ attention to a tragedy, but these two journalists also focused on the idea of body and beauty image and the loss of self-worth as they applied to Houston’s spiral into drugs and her eventual death: “Years after "The Bodyguard" hit theaters, reports of Houston's struggles with drug addiction and a rocky marriage with Bobby Brown surfaced and her album sales declined” Carroll et. al.) Costner, who was Houston’s co-star in The Bodyguard, related that Whitney’s own struggles with self-esteem can help and inspire other young girls: “Maybe they're thinking they aren't good enough,” he said. “I think Whitney would tell you: Guard your bodies. Guard the precious miracle of your life” (Carroll et. al.)

So, does the idea that Whitney’s story can be used as a template for other girls struggling with similar issues overshadow perhaps the immorality of televising and covering a funeral that should have been excusive to mourning family members and friends? The article also cites ex-husband Bobby Brown’s controversial appearance, as well as his altercation with Houston’s family during the service. This paints another controversial picture, hinting at the tabloid stories that permeate credible news stories such as CNN. This alludes to the fact that CNN is catering to what audiences are craving to read and watch; they know that featuring such stories will not only improve readership and ratings, but will simultaneously make audiences question their personal relationship to Whitney’s death. Do you think it was appropriate and beneficial for audiences to see live coverage of Whitney Houston’s funeral, or was it immoral, taking away from social responsibility and fair, balanced and responsible journalism? What other examples have you seen in the media that correlate with the media giving preference to stories and material they know will interest audiences, despite its controversial or immoral content?

Sarah Rosenberg

Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6^th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012).

Nerone, John C. “Social Responsibility Theory.” McQuail, Denis, ed. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. (London: Sage, 2002).

Carroll, Jason and Chelsea J. Carter. “Whitney Houston’s journey ‘home’ ends.” "CNN News." CNN News. 19 Feb 2012. Web. 19 Feb. 2012.

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/showbiz/whitney-houston/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Celebrity Framing and the Spiral of Silence

In today’s society the media has large control over public views. It is the media that decides what stories we see and what becomes important. They are the ones who chose what the public will hear and not hear and it is largely the media that helps the public to form a certain opinion on what they present to them. In the wake of the Grammys, one story that has been a very popular one is that of Chris Brown performing and winning for Best R&B Album. This was met with a lot of controversy because of his domestic violence past with former girlfriend, Rihanna who also performed at the show. One article from the Los Angela’s Times talked about his performance. The story is told in a way that informs the viewer that he won while also bringing up his past and taking small jabs at him even saying he won in a “weak field” (McDonnell).

The idea of personalized news is apparent with some news casters or writers who from their media by implementing their own views on the issue. “The focus on individual actors[s] who are easy to identify with positively or negatively invites members of the news audience to project their own private feelings and fantasies directly onto public life” (Baran & Davis 303). This is done to cause more dramatizations to bring the viewer in. The flaw in this is that focusing on just one individual takes viewers away from the larger issue at hand. In this case the larger issue would be domestic abuse and its causes. Could there be certain social factors or contributions that cause people to be domestic abusers? What is being done about domestic abuse? It becomes less about the issue and more about how much the individual is hated like in Chris Brown’s case. The media plays up the drama of the event, especially because it involved two different celebrities, but when they are focusing so much on this person the larger issue at hand is not really being addressed.

The way in which the article in the Los Angela’s Times is written is defiantly exemplifying a certain way of framing a story. Framing is “how people use expectations to make sense of everyday life” (Baran & Davis 330). These “expectations are often associated with and can arouse strong emotions such as hate, fear, and love” (Baran & Davis 330). I think the writer in this article, (and most stories about Brown), used framing to convey a sense of hate for the singer. I think this would be the case with any domestic abuser who is in the public eye. There are certain social cues used by this writer to take jabs at Brown and convey a sense of dislike. Also the writer brings to the viewers attention that it was “striking” that Brown’s performance and win was in the wake of Whitney Houston’s death who was also abused by her ex-husband. Some younger generations may have not known that Whitney Houston was domestically abused, but the writer does frame the story in this way to bring it to the viewers attention that it was distasteful when they may have not known that before.

It’s actually surprising to me that Chris Brown did perform and did win a Grammy because his reputation was largely damaged after the domestic abuse against Rihanna. Usually people don’t often speak out against the view of the public. This is known as the “spiral of silence”. I think Chris Brown lost a lot of his fans after the incident maybe not because they didn’t like his music but because since the media hated him they did too. Obviously in large part society didn’t like him anymore because he became known as an abuser. But I wonder if some people out there still liked him but were too afraid to say that they did because of the public’s view of him. “Silence, it appears, is a reaction to taboo, fear and shame – for those who think differently than what they perceive others to be thinking. Asch finds that some people actually begin to see things as they think others do” (Katz 381).  Were people afraid to say that they liked Chris Brown before? Also, has his reputation now been repaired and has the silence been lifted? “When everybody believes that he is the only one who thinks something, and does not talk about his opinion for fear of violating a moral taboo or an authoritarian ruler, or of just being unpopular, it sometimes happens that a wave of publicity will sweep through the community, informing people that everybody else (or many others) think as they do” (Katz 381). I wonder if more people will like him now because a form of media (the Grammys) really went against the public view and portrayed him in a better light, even awarding him. Will people now not be afraid to say that they like him?

Article

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/news/la-et-grammy-chris-brown-20120213,0,4117259.story

Celebrity News Agenda-Setting

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:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/whitney-houston-iconic-pop-star-dies-48/story?id=15565260

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/11/showbiz/whitney-houston-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/02/11/whitney-houston-dies-at-48/