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/

Agenda Setting in Mass Media

Over the last couple of years many of the avid newspaper readers have begun to cancel their subscription due to the increased negativity of the stories. Many of the stories concerning deaths, thefts, and our damaged economy have taken over the front pages of papers as well as online sites. TV news is also involved in this as well showing a large amount of violence on their news programs. The media has the ability to make one story more important than others. The amount of time it gets on a broadcast, way it is written or spoken, and the position in which it is located within a newspaper or news cast. McCombs and Shaw state “In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. 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.” So why is it some stories that may seem pointless stay in the news for weeks? Who determines which stories are more important than other and why they are important? The media has the ability to “set the agenda” on the importance of issues. A good example would be to go back to a clip Professor Burns showed us in class that showed CNN’s broadcast of the presidential debate. The first question asked was to Newt Gingrich about his “open marriage” claim to his ex-wife. The question in which John King asked was “Would you like to take some time to respond to that?” Gingrich came back firing but right away the media set the tone for the entire debate starting with that question. So why was it CNN felt that this question was the most important to start off with? Personally, I have no idea and it frustrates me to see the media have this much power to shift every ones focus of the debate to a personal issue. Rogers and Dearing state “Many scholars now see omnipotent mass media systems as the mechanism linking the public with political policymakers. The media have usurped the linking function of political parties in the United States, creating what can now be thought of as a “media democracy” (Linsky, 1986).” As we see now a lot in the media negative news is the most “newsworthy” so to say. We can turn on the TV news channels at any time and will see a story about a death or some act of violence that has taken place. I have found through personal research and opinion that the more negative the story the longer it is going to stay in the news. Now not all news continues to have negative views. Since many media viewers are tired of the negativity, positive newspapers and news sites have emerged. They have taken the same concepts traditional media stations except they apply it to positive stories. They give more time and space to the bigger stories like traditional media but show nothing of negativity. For me I was unaware of these sites because the most “credible” news places like The New York Times, CNN, FOX, and more are the ones always shown. The agenda setting theory can be applied to this as well in that the major news station are considered more newsworthy because they have the ability to show their stories through multiple media outlets. Many of the positive news sites are still in blog type format. All in all our country sees too much negativity when it comes to getting our news and more should begin to find other new sources in which things are shown in a more positive light.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fireworks-cnn-debate-gingrich-open-marriage-charge/story?id=15399250#.TzWl3FymiSo

http://positivenews.org.uk/

Violence and Sex in Music Videos on Television

In the reading, “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators: the analysis of mass mediated public message systems”, by George Gerbner, he discusses ‘cultural indicators’ as a way to show the behavioral effects of T.V programs on American society, but what I’ve learned is that it’s not only affecting American children but children around the world as well. Gerbner stated, “What is informative, entertaining (or both), good, bad, or indifferent by any standard of quality are selective judgements applied to messages quite independently from the social functions they actually perform in the context of large message systems touching the collective life of a whole community” (Gerbner pg.147). The different programs that are being shown on these television programs have a sometimes negative effect on its viewers, maily its young viewers who tend to absorb things like sponges and what is that doing to the way that our kids go about their lives?

            I came across this news article called, “Music videos or porn with music?” by Akua Djahle in which she discusses how these days it’s extremely awkward to watch music videos with children because of the way women are portrayed in these videos. What I found interesting in this article was that it gave a little bit of a global aspect because she’s actually talking about videos in the African country she’s from, but yet they practically imitate American music videos. She talks about how she feels that the assimilation of the American culture has had a negative effected on how the children where she lives grow up as well. She even states, “Africans should use music and videos to tell stories about their people. I am not suggesting we go tribal, wear only loincloths and throw spears about”. The author states how music videos are moving to far form actual cheoregraphy and more towards women just “shacking their backsides” to the point where you only see that you don’t even see the women’s faces. The author talks about how she bought a music DVD for her children to watch not realizing how much inappropriate things would be in that one video.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1985537161&Fmt=6&clientId=8920&RQT=309&VName=PQD

 In Mcquail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory book Mcquail he states, “To the extent that the global nature of television and film and the dominance of American popular culture is moving across the privatized television environments of Europe and elsewhere, then perhaps American television programming and its effects will foreshadow concerns about television violence effect in other countries” (McQuail pg. 404).  These kind of things are what make me think that sometimes globalization in the media isn’t always positive; western influence can have negative effects our culture should stay our culture when other countries start to pick up our bad habits the consequences might be even worse in other countries then they are here.

            There’s another article I found, “Rihanna defends killing portrayed in video” by, Gerrick Kennedy from the Vancouver Sun , that refers specifically to Rihanna’s video “Man Down”  where the the Parents Television Council join together to “condemn the video and urge Viacom, BET’s parent company,  to pull it because in the video Rihanna shoots down a man in a crowd of people.  This video is a good example of music video on our television programs shown to our children at any time of the day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhy-RXkNo0&ob=av2e

Djanie, A.. "Music videos or porn with music? " New African  1 Mar. 2010: Research Library, ProQuest. Web.  6 Feb. 2012.

Gerrick D Kennedy.  "Rihanna defends killing portrayed in video; Advocacy groups disturbed by scene that shows woman exacting revenge on sex offender. " The Vancouver Sun  3  Jun 2011, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web.  6 Feb. 2012.

Do you feel that if the video is trying to prove a certain message then the violence should be allowed or should it banned altogether and only allowed online? How do you feel about the effect music videos on television is having on our global community, how do you think foreigners perceive us after they watch these videos? Should music videos only be allowed online? 

Violence in Video Games on Society

CONTINUED : Ashley Heiberger:

A study was performed on one hundred undergraduate males at a university in 2006. The objective was to “test the effects of media violence exposure on blood pressure, negative affect, hostile social information processing, uncooperative behavior, and attitudes toward health risk behaviors among young men varying in lifetime violence exposure within the home and community” (Brady, Matthews). The conclusion was that those young men “developed negative attitudes and behaviors relating to health” (Brady, Matthews). However, children who grow up in an abusive household “may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure,” whereas all kids have that chance of becoming outwardly negative (Brady, Matthews). Since 2006, more violent and better graphic video games have been released; therefore, a chance in more negative outcomes.

View clip Grand Theft Auto (GTA): WATCH FROM 2:00-4:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDPAW0HY51E&feature=related

            There are cases online about tweens and young adults who have copied the behavior of Grand Theft Auto (GTA) and went on shooting sprees and car thefts. Video games are specifically for audience involvement; “that is, players are much more involved in the on-screen activity than are television viewers” (Baran, Davis 203). Therefore, the player is not just moving around the character but also becoming “emotionally and psychologically interacted” (Baran, Davis 204). Will these players go out and refabricate what they are doing with the controller? Or do the players believe what most of us accept as the truth- other people are swayed by the media but not us, known as the third-person effect (Baran, Davis 11).

            This resembles the hypodermic needle theory in which we covered in class. Where media puts all their ideas and information in a tube and shoot it right into the passive audience’s brain. This creates a direct effect in the audience of violent video games. There have been reports of cases where people mimic GTA. The previous study mentioned that those undergraduate men had negative attitudes towards overall health after playing GTA. But how can we point our fingers at the media when parents are the ones allowing video games inside their home? As an individual who grew up with five older siblings and around plentiful video games, I can say that I own GTA. I believe in the third-person effect because I know issues are out there but I do not believe I am the one who is affected by the video games. According to Baran and Davis, “research on violent television and film, videogames, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts” (204).  Therefore, do you believe that video games, such as GTA, increase violent behavior?

Works Cited

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

Brady, Sonya S, and Karen A Matthews. “Effects of Media Violence on Health-Related Outcomes Among Young Men.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. American Medical Association, Apr. 2006. Web. 3 Feb. 2012. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/‌cgi/‌content/‌abstract/‌160/‌4/‌341.

McQuail, Denis. Mcquail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2012. Print.

Violence in Video Games on Society

Ashley Heiberger:

Most of us can agree that the “M” for “Mature” on video games does not necessarily come across like an “R” for “Restricted Audiences” on a movie. Why is that? Most parents are not aware of the ratings on video games and if so, they do not realize the content involved in the video game. Another point is that children, and teens, get older friends or relatives to buy the “mature” game for them. While parents are at work, it is relieving to know their son or daughter is at home in front of the television playing a video game instead of running around getting in trouble. “98% of the 95 million American homes have television sets” (McQuail 399), while about 90% of “young people have a game console at home, and half have a game device in their bedroom” (Baran, Davis 203). That number only increases with the new technology becoming available.

There is no denying the increase in violence in America. There are school shootings, bombings, hazing deaths, etc. Three-fourths of “adolescent killings” involve a gun (McQuail 399). Violence surrounds us not only in schools but also in the media. According to McQuail, “By the time the average American child graduates from elementary school he or she will have seen over 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence” (399). Although it is not proven that viewing violence is the main source of imitation, it is proven that “more than 40 years of research indicates a relationship between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior” (McQuail 399). Imitation is the “direct mechanical reproduction of behavior” and it is proven that teens have imitated the violence they witness through video games (Baran, Davis 194).

Violence on Children’s Television Programming and the Cultivation Theory

  We have undoubtedly seen an uptick in violence all over American media.  Whether it is in newspapers, on the television, online, in video games, etc. it has become a prevalent part of our society.  Studies continue to go back and forth in determining if aggressive behavior in children is a direct result of the violent behaviors they are seeing in the media.  For our purpose, I want to spark the discussion of how violence on children’s television does result in the emulation of these behaviors in reality.

            Gerbner notes that we are amidst a ‘”Cultural Revolution.” In his definition it is made clear that this involves a societal change that results in a “transformation of the common symbolic environment that gives [the] public meaning and a sense of direction to human activity” (144).  In relation to the other readings, I related this to the readings on the violence we see in the world today.  Children raised in America are expected to “have seen over 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of violence” by the time they are in the 5^th grade (Wartella et al, 399).  These numbers seem incredibly high, especially for the time frame it is in regard to in a young child’s life.  In addition to this, a study reported on by Fox News also presented the statistic that after analyzing 444 hours of kids’ daytime TV shoes, The Parents Television Council found 6.3 incidents of violence per hour which is more than what they found in prime time aimed at adults during a 2002 study (Associated Press). 

            Now, not every child is going to witness these acts and then become murderers or aggressive as a result, but there are other effects that unfortunately do not gain as much attention.  The idea of children becoming desensitized to real world violence is an interesting one.  According to Wartella, Olivarez, and Jennings, “Research has demonstrated that prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward real world violence and the victims of violence which in turn can lead to callous attitudes toward violence directed at others…” (403).  In a study featured on Fox News they reported that “children under age 8 are cognitively unable to distinguish between real and fantasy violence.”  Additionally, in a study on reactions to the violence of the September 11^th attacks, a researcher found that children were must less upset than adults, which he potentially linked to their inability of determining the seriousness of this violence in comparison with what they are regularly seeing on TV (Associated Press).  Granted this could be a stretch, there is relevance.  Gerbner notes in terms of cultivation theory that “the usual purpose of the fictional and dramatic modes of presentation is to present situations rather than fragments of knowledge as such” (148).  However, when we use this idea to look at children’s television it becomes much deeper.  Yes, fiction is meant to be fantastical and is not always a reflection of reality, but not all children have the wherewithal to determine this for themselves.  This is where we see the violent behaviors presenting themselves in a child’s day to day conduct.

            The last point I want to make on the topic is about the fear that many Americans have due largely in part to what the media focuses on.  It is not only the fictional television shows that we watch, but also movies and actual news broadcasting.  In the world of journalism I have learned that “if it bleeds, it leads” which is directly applicable to the American media industry.  Even if a shooting isn’t overly serious, you can beat that it will be one of the biggest stories on the evening news.  Our society has been hardwired to pay serious attention to violence and its frequency in our daily lives.  Wartella, Olivarez, and Jennings quote Gerbner in saying that “heavy viewers of television become fearful of the world, afraid of becoming a victim of violence and over time engage in more self-protective behaviors and show more mistrust of others” (404).  This goes for adults and children as well.  The more violence that they consume in the media they intake, the more it seems people are afraid of the world we live in.  It truly is shameful that people have to live in this way and children are being taught to adopt a nonchalant attitude to violence through media so silly as cartoons, something we deem as innocent and entertaining.

           

**Additional article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186670,00.html

Social Learning and Cultivation Theory

                Television is one of the great educators of our lives. Not only do we learn important facts (from History or Discovery channels); useful skills (HGTV or the Food Network); and local, national and global news (any major network), but we also learn about our society. We see how people should or shouldn’t interact with each other, what is considered appropriate or not, and, at our age, what we can expect of the “real world.” Speaking of “The Real World,” reality television has had a huge impact since this show began in the 1990’s. Now, almost every other show you turn on is reality – whether it’s a game show like “Survivor” or a documentary-like show like “The Jersey Shore.*” But is this content really considered reality? Are we learning the truth about other people’s lives through reality television, or are we cultivating nonsensical arguments and extreme, forced situations that we believe to be true? “It has been around since the late 1960s, when media psychologist George Gerbner stated that exposure to cultural imagery can shape a viewer's concept of reality. Simply put, the more TV a person watches, the more that person believes in the world of TV” (Jaffe).

                I think that the more reality television we watch, the less we know what reality actually is. "’In general, one of the negative things about television is that it gives a distorted image of what the rest of the world is like,’ said APS Fellow and Charter Member Craig A. Anderson, Iowa State University, who focuses mostly on violent media but sees some overlap with reality shows. ‘TV changes the perception of what is normative’” (Jaffe).  Television totally changes people’s ideas about what is considered normal.  Stereotypes abound in our culture and they are only reinforced, if not created, from reality television. “Publication as a general social process is the creation and cultivation of shared ways of selecting and viewing events and aspects of life. Mass production and distribution of message systems transforms selected private perspectives into broad public perspectives, and brings mass publics into existence. These publics are maintained through continued publication.” (Gerbner  146). Repeated viewings of Snooki getting drunk or “ladies” on the Bachelor throwing hissy fits have led to generalizations that people from New Jersey are uncontrollable guidos or that all single women are desperately insane, respectively (?).While this effect is not the same as the “Mean World Index,” which believes that  “…heavy viewers held a ‘mainstreamed’ perception of the world as a mean place even when they lived in a middle-class social world much less threatened by actual crime” (Baran 345), there is definitely a parallel “Real World Index.” People seem to think that the world is a lot more crazy/dangerous/sketchy than it actually is. This certainly has to do with the realness of it all. “’Reality TV is claiming it's real, even though there's a striking lack of resemblance to what's really happening in the world. But the average viewers, who aren't as savvy to know how the shows are being produced, are being told that what they're seeing is true’” (Jaffe). It’s called REALITY TV, for goodness’s sake, of course people think it’s true. (Naturally, we, as elite media studies students, do not fall prey to this.)