Pat Bagley’s editorial cartoon in today’s (11/7/10) Salt Lake Tribune is PERFECT for Media Smarties. Check it out. .
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The News Cycle
.
Pat Bagley’s editorial cartoon in today’s (11/7/10) Salt Lake Tribune is PERFECT for Media Smarties. Check it out.
.
Pat Bagley’s editorial cartoon in today’s (11/7/10) Salt Lake Tribune is PERFECT for Media Smarties. Check it out. .
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Colbert Helps Put Newseum in Its Place
.
At Newseum, Stewart and Colbert Fans Get a Bit of ‘Truthiness’
Dr. Ted sez: The Newseum is a truly amazing place, not just a mausoleum to a dying press, as Stephen Colbert suggests in his video spoof helping to open the enormous museum on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., but a constantly evolving tribute to the role of a free press. And, as it turns out, the Newseum also now has interred both Colbert and Jon Stewart in anticipation of Saturday’s joint “Rally to Restore Sanity” and “March to Keep Fear Alive” on the Washington Mall.
By Andrea Silen
Newseum Assistant Web writer
• The Real News in Fake News
.
Reposted from the Newseum website. URL
.
At Newseum, Stewart and Colbert Fans Get a Bit of ‘Truthiness’
Dr. Ted sez: The Newseum is a truly amazing place, not just a mausoleum to a dying press, as Stephen Colbert suggests in his video spoof helping to open the enormous museum on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., but a constantly evolving tribute to the role of a free press. And, as it turns out, the Newseum also now has interred both Colbert and Jon Stewart in anticipation of Saturday’s joint “Rally to Restore Sanity” and “March to Keep Fear Alive” on the Washington Mall.
By Andrea Silen
Newseum Assistant Web writer
WASHINGTON — While America’s favorite fake newscasters Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hold dueling rallies on the National Mall Oct. 30, Newseum visitors can get a close-up look at the artifacts that made “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” among the most watched late-night talk shows on television.
Currently displayed in the News Corporation News History Gallery is a microphone from Stewart’s “Daily Show” that was used during the critically acclaimed “Indecision 2004” election coverage.
The original script from “The Colbert Report,” in which Colbert’s trademark word “truthiness” first appeared, is also on exhibit. An “On Notice” board — a lineup of satirical targets that annoy Colbert — round off the display. Grizzly Bears and the Newseum are two of the targets on the board.
In 2008, Colbert helped celebrate the grand opening of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., in a video suggesting the Newseum change its name to Newsoleum.
The Comedy Central comedians’ dueling rallies are spoofs of the “Restoring Honor” rally that was held in August by conservative commentator Glenn Beck.
Stewart will host the “Rally to Restore Sanity,” which he said was created “for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive and terrible for your throat.” The event is meant to counterbalance the angry tones that critics have said characterized the nation's political discourse.
Colbert, whose on-air persona has an ongoing feud with Stewart, will lead the “March to Keep Fear Alive.” Both events are expected to draw large crowds.
“The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are widely popular among adults 18 to 34. While the programs are parodies of mainstream news, they have become the preferred source of news and information for many young TV viewers.
Related Links:• The Real News in Fake News
.
Reposted from the Newseum website. URL
.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Must Be True, I Heard It on the News
.
America the Ignorant:
Silly Things We Believe About Obama, Witches and More
Chances are that by now you've heard about the Aug. 19, 2010, Pew poll that found that nearly one fifth of Americans (mistakenly) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps you think that a terrifying outlier; or perhaps you're a believer, and then you are in good company. Either way, you're wrong: in fact, remarkably high numbers of Americans believe the most unusual things. Although the portion of poll respondents who believe Obama is a Muslim has risen recently, some of these oddball opinions contain more consistent numbers of believers. Here's a sampling of the nuttiest.
Darwin
To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist's theory. But the results must have had Darwin
spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn't believe it; the remaining portion either didn't have an opinion or didn't answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin's name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones.
I Am Not a Witch
It seems obvious that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in witchcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common among Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half decade would make much difference.
Death Panels
From Facebook to faith: that's how a spurious rumor became part of the national dialogue. On Facebook, Sarah Palin wrote in August 2009 that Obama would institute a "death panel" as part of health-care reform. Soon pundits and politicians were demagoguing the issue into common currency. Even in August 2010, one year after the initial burst and five months after health reform was signed into law, the belief lingers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, four in 10 Americans mistakenly believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a panel that makes decisions about end-of-life care.
WMDs
Even years after claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or had links to the September 11 attacks had been debunked, not all Americans were convinced. In a June 2007 NEWSWEEK poll (“Dunce Cap Nation”), four years after the invasion of Iraq, 41 percent believed Saddam was involved in 9/11—even though President Bush had said otherwise as early as September 2003. Wild views on 9/11 are in fact still rampant. In September 2009, Public Policy Polling found that a quarter of Democrats suspected Bush had something to do with the attacks. Meanwhile, many Americans also remain convinced that Saddam had WMDs, even though inspectors haven't found any in the seven years since the invasion. Still, as of 2006, half of Americans believed that, according to Harris. Who knows where they got that idea?
Earth-Sun?
Didn't we clear this one up in the 16th century? Copernicus be damned, 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth. Gallup, the pollster that conducted the study, gamely tried to dress it up by celebrating the fact that "four out of five Americans know Earth revolves around the sun," but we're not buying.
Religion
If mutual understanding is the key to tolerance, we're in trouble. According to NEWSWEEK's 2007 What You Need to Know poll, barely half of Americans were correctly able to state that Judaism was older than both Christianity and Islam. Another 41 percent weren't sure; in case you're in that group, here goes: Judaism is the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, followed by Christianity—which reveres the Jewish prophets (including Moses, above)—and then Islam, which reveres the Jewish prophets and also hails Jesus as a prophet. (And a September 2010 Pew survey found that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than members of mainstream established religions. Question authority?)
The 9 Justices v. The 7 Dwarfs
It’s hard to imagine what inspired the pollsters at Zogby to ask the question, but the answer is striking: in a 2006 poll, more than three quarters of Americans could name at least two of the seven dwarfs, while not quite a quarter could name two members of the Supreme Court. NEWSWEEK's response is a split decision, if you will: on the one hand, Disney is as much a symbol of America as the high court, and those dwarfs are adorable. On the other hand, it should be easy to name only two out of a pool of nine options. Objection sustained!
Where in the World?
Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map (can you?), despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can’t find Afghanistan—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent that’s home to the Amazon River, the world’s largest.
Stooges
What a bunch of knuckleheads: according to Zogby, the majority of Americans—three in four—can correctly identify Larry, Curly, and Moe as the Three Stooges. Only two out of five respondents, however, can correctly identify the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as the three wings of government.
Freedom of Faith for Me, Not Thee
Who needs constitutional constructionism? Not one in three Americans, apparently: that’s the proportion that said in a 2008 First Amendment Center poll that the constitutional right to freedom of religion was never meant to apply to groups most folks think are extreme or fringe—a 10 percent increase from 2000. In 2007, two out of five Americans told the FAC that teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public schools.
Muslim Obama
Opponents of President Obama have been spreading false rumors about his religion for quite some time. Recently, however, it seems that the number of Americans who believe these untruths is on the rise. Among respondents to a Pew poll, 18 percent believed Obama was a Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. A Time magazine poll last week found similar results: 24 percent believed he was a Muslim, while only 47 percent correctly identified him as a Christian. There’s some evidence that the best indicator of belief that Obama is a Muslim is opposing him politically, casting doubt on the accuracy of the results. Then again, it wouldn’t be the craziest thing Americans believe, would it?
.
America the Ignorant:
Silly Things We Believe About Obama, Witches and More
Dr. Ted sez: The central premise of Media Smarts is that, well, most of us aren’t. Very media-smart, that is. As U.S. educational achievement lags behind nearly two dozen other countries, according to a new report, this lack of media savvy can have big consequences, if the mass media are where most Americans seem to learn most of what they think they know. Here’s some evidence of that. David Graham of Newsweek has compiled a sobering litany of just a few of the myths Americans believe based on “stuff” (a technical term) they hear/see/read in the mass media. Part of the problem with what we used to call “objective” reporting is that journalists who simply report what their sources say—which is one definition of “objective” reporting—are just propagating the speaker’s lies or misrepresentations. Think about Obama the a) foreign-born b) Muslim who c) supports “death panels” to clean out old people from the Social Security rolls. We all heard these claims in the news, but that doesn’t make them true. Still, like McLuhan’s fish, Americans seem to soak up these myths and can’t get rid of them. This is a wonderful example of why America needs to work on its media smarts.
“Curro ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.)
—René Descartes (1596-1650) French philosopher, mathematician
By David A. Graham
Newsweek
October 2010Chances are that by now you've heard about the Aug. 19, 2010, Pew poll that found that nearly one fifth of Americans (mistakenly) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps you think that a terrifying outlier; or perhaps you're a believer, and then you are in good company. Either way, you're wrong: in fact, remarkably high numbers of Americans believe the most unusual things. Although the portion of poll respondents who believe Obama is a Muslim has risen recently, some of these oddball opinions contain more consistent numbers of believers. Here's a sampling of the nuttiest.
Darwin
To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist's theory. But the results must have had Darwin
spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn't believe it; the remaining portion either didn't have an opinion or didn't answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin's name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones.I Am Not a Witch
It seems obvious that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in witchcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common among Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half decade would make much difference.
Death PanelsFrom Facebook to faith: that's how a spurious rumor became part of the national dialogue. On Facebook, Sarah Palin wrote in August 2009 that Obama would institute a "death panel" as part of health-care reform. Soon pundits and politicians were demagoguing the issue into common currency. Even in August 2010, one year after the initial burst and five months after health reform was signed into law, the belief lingers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, four in 10 Americans mistakenly believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a panel that makes decisions about end-of-life care.
WMDs
Even years after claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or had links to the September 11 attacks had been debunked, not all Americans were convinced. In a June 2007 NEWSWEEK poll (“Dunce Cap Nation”), four years after the invasion of Iraq, 41 percent believed Saddam was involved in 9/11—even though President Bush had said otherwise as early as September 2003. Wild views on 9/11 are in fact still rampant. In September 2009, Public Policy Polling found that a quarter of Democrats suspected Bush had something to do with the attacks. Meanwhile, many Americans also remain convinced that Saddam had WMDs, even though inspectors haven't found any in the seven years since the invasion. Still, as of 2006, half of Americans believed that, according to Harris. Who knows where they got that idea?
Earth-Sun?Didn't we clear this one up in the 16th century? Copernicus be damned, 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth. Gallup, the pollster that conducted the study, gamely tried to dress it up by celebrating the fact that "four out of five Americans know Earth revolves around the sun," but we're not buying.
Religion
If mutual understanding is the key to tolerance, we're in trouble. According to NEWSWEEK's 2007 What You Need to Know poll, barely half of Americans were correctly able to state that Judaism was older than both Christianity and Islam. Another 41 percent weren't sure; in case you're in that group, here goes: Judaism is the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, followed by Christianity—which reveres the Jewish prophets (including Moses, above)—and then Islam, which reveres the Jewish prophets and also hails Jesus as a prophet. (And a September 2010 Pew survey found that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than members of mainstream established religions. Question authority?)
The 9 Justices v. The 7 DwarfsIt’s hard to imagine what inspired the pollsters at Zogby to ask the question, but the answer is striking: in a 2006 poll, more than three quarters of Americans could name at least two of the seven dwarfs, while not quite a quarter could name two members of the Supreme Court. NEWSWEEK's response is a split decision, if you will: on the one hand, Disney is as much a symbol of America as the high court, and those dwarfs are adorable. On the other hand, it should be easy to name only two out of a pool of nine options. Objection sustained!
Where in the World?
Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map (can you?), despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can’t find Afghanistan—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent that’s home to the Amazon River, the world’s largest.
StoogesWhat a bunch of knuckleheads: according to Zogby, the majority of Americans—three in four—can correctly identify Larry, Curly, and Moe as the Three Stooges. Only two out of five respondents, however, can correctly identify the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as the three wings of government.
Freedom of Faith for Me, Not Thee
Who needs constitutional constructionism? Not one in three Americans, apparently: that’s the proportion that said in a 2008 First Amendment Center poll that the constitutional right to freedom of religion was never meant to apply to groups most folks think are extreme or fringe—a 10 percent increase from 2000. In 2007, two out of five Americans told the FAC that teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public schools.
Muslim ObamaOpponents of President Obama have been spreading false rumors about his religion for quite some time. Recently, however, it seems that the number of Americans who believe these untruths is on the rise. Among respondents to a Pew poll, 18 percent believed Obama was a Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. A Time magazine poll last week found similar results: 24 percent believed he was a Muslim, while only 47 percent correctly identified him as a Christian. There’s some evidence that the best indicator of belief that Obama is a Muslim is opposing him politically, casting doubt on the accuracy of the results. Then again, it wouldn’t be the craziest thing Americans believe, would it?
.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Political Ads
.
Election-year advertising over the top . . . or bottom?
Dear Smarties:
I’m not sure if it’s even reasonable to expect truth during a campaign season, especially a mid-term election year like this one when there is so much heat (and so little light) from the Tea Party and both Democratic and GOP critics over the Obama Administration’s perceived performance. The GOP hopes to regain control of the House of Representatives in November, and there’s a slim chance that they could get the Senate, too.
Meanwhile, clearly unqualified candidates (and that’s not a partisan statement...look at some of the winners of recent primaries) in many states might put “mama grizzlies” in the U.S. Senate (Delaware, Nevada, etc.) and in some governorships, all because of popular anger over the economy, “Obamacare” and the bank bailout (which was a Bush policy).
In such a climate, truth always suffers as partisans roar. Check this out from NBC News last night, as political advertising reaches new levels.
—Dr. Ted
Campaign ads depict not-so-real world
In the battle for the airwaves ahead of the midterm elections, Democrats are being outspent seven to one by Republicans, who in some cases are hiring actors to portray angry voters in attack ads. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.
Election-year advertising over the top . . . or bottom?
Dear Smarties:
I’m not sure if it’s even reasonable to expect truth during a campaign season, especially a mid-term election year like this one when there is so much heat (and so little light) from the Tea Party and both Democratic and GOP critics over the Obama Administration’s perceived performance. The GOP hopes to regain control of the House of Representatives in November, and there’s a slim chance that they could get the Senate, too.
Meanwhile, clearly unqualified candidates (and that’s not a partisan statement...look at some of the winners of recent primaries) in many states might put “mama grizzlies” in the U.S. Senate (Delaware, Nevada, etc.) and in some governorships, all because of popular anger over the economy, “Obamacare” and the bank bailout (which was a Bush policy).In such a climate, truth always suffers as partisans roar. Check this out from NBC News last night, as political advertising reaches new levels.
—Dr. Ted
Campaign ads depict not-so-real world
In the battle for the airwaves ahead of the midterm elections, Democrats are being outspent seven to one by Republicans, who in some cases are hiring actors to portray angry voters in attack ads. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Unraveling Truth
.
Making Sense of Truthiness
All: Like all of you, Kai Garcia has been thinking about a focus for her truthiness project. She sent me this email: “I really want to explore the topic of same-sex marriage. I feel there is a lot of opinion on the subject and want to really look into the truth and truthiness of the issue. I feel as if media and the general public have a lot to say about gay marriage and I’m interested in finding out the real reliable facts rather than just the biased comments and opinion feeding into the media flow.”
Good questions.
Dr. Ted responds:
Same-sex marriage certainly qualifies as the kind of topic that the mass media help become so incendiary in public conversation, and where opinion tends to get in the way of rational discussion—which is one definition of the truth vs. “truthiness” debate.
Everyone in pursuit of this truthiness project needs to remember that although opinion (on anything) is an important protected right in a free society (we vote as a matter of our own “conscience” and personal opinion, right?), much of that conversation gets heated up by partisans (believers in one direction or another), by mass media pundits and their need to keep audience attention by yelling and escalating emotions.
The same-sex issue is extremely volatile, and it often gives off more heat than light. And it continues as a current hot issue. On National Public Radio right now as I type this, as a matter of fact, is a story about the First Amendment rights of anti-gay protesters who picketed the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan with signs like this: “You’re a Fag” and “You’re Going to Hell...” to protest the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy. (Excuse me? At a funeral!? That’s free speech, of course, but makes me want to punch somebody...) That case is going to the Supreme Court. (See this URL).
In Utah, same-sex marriage is a current local issue because of LDS Church policy—as discussed again over the weekend by Boyd K. Packer at General Conference. And it’s current at USU because the JCOM department will bring JCOM alumnus Reed Cowan, a TV news anchor in Miami and director/producer of a controversial movie called 8: The Mormon Proposition, to campus on Oct. 21 (be there if you can!). The movie examines being gay in Utah, same-sex marriage issues, and the Prop 8 campaign that revoked same-sex marriage in California in 2008. That’s going to the Supreme Court, too. For USU, this is an opportunity to talk about these issues.
But I digress. The point is that same-sex marriage and gay issues are extremely incendiary everywhere, and so in looking at this topic from a media smarts perspective, it’s important to remember that the emotions accompanying the debate can skew the conversation. That is part of the truthiness project—what is “real,” and how do we define that in the mass media? You will have to spend a little time understanding what the issues are for yourself (is homosexuality “immoral”? If so, so what? why? Do gay people threaten the rest of society? How? What is the overriding issue in this conversation? and what is the mass media’s role in the societal discussion?)
We need to remember what the mass media can do in society, and what the media’s responsibility is. The Hutchins Commission (see your readings) offers a model for “social responsibility” (but how do we decide what that means?). Ethics codes from groups like the Society of Professional Journalists offer some yardsticks to measure media ethics. The first is to “minimize harm,” which is a lot like the Hippocratic Oath for doctors: “First, do no harm.” So how do the media accomplish that while reporting on topics like race or same-sex issues or women’s rights, all of which can become highly charged for the individuals involved? As communicators, do we report the emotion and ramp up the rhetoric for society, or can we find ways to make sense of these issues so that our neighbors can make informed decisions?
So, yes, Kai (and the rest of you). This is a great news topic to examine. But it’s also complicated by, well, human beings, from our own individual selective perceptions to how the issues are framed in the mass media, and how we—individually and in the mass media—cultivate opinions and perspectives on what we think we “know” about the issues and the world.
This is why I love being a professor of interesting stuff.
Ted Pease
Making Sense of Truthiness
All: Like all of you, Kai Garcia has been thinking about a focus for her truthiness project. She sent me this email: “I really want to explore the topic of same-sex marriage. I feel there is a lot of opinion on the subject and want to really look into the truth and truthiness of the issue. I feel as if media and the general public have a lot to say about gay marriage and I’m interested in finding out the real reliable facts rather than just the biased comments and opinion feeding into the media flow.”
Good questions.
Dr. Ted responds:
Same-sex marriage certainly qualifies as the kind of topic that the mass media help become so incendiary in public conversation, and where opinion tends to get in the way of rational discussion—which is one definition of the truth vs. “truthiness” debate.
Everyone in pursuit of this truthiness project needs to remember that although opinion (on anything) is an important protected right in a free society (we vote as a matter of our own “conscience” and personal opinion, right?), much of that conversation gets heated up by partisans (believers in one direction or another), by mass media pundits and their need to keep audience attention by yelling and escalating emotions.
The same-sex issue is extremely volatile, and it often gives off more heat than light. And it continues as a current hot issue. On National Public Radio right now as I type this, as a matter of fact, is a story about the First Amendment rights of anti-gay protesters who picketed the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan with signs like this: “You’re a Fag” and “You’re Going to Hell...” to protest the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy. (Excuse me? At a funeral!? That’s free speech, of course, but makes me want to punch somebody...) That case is going to the Supreme Court. (See this URL).
In Utah, same-sex marriage is a current local issue because of LDS Church policy—as discussed again over the weekend by Boyd K. Packer at General Conference. And it’s current at USU because the JCOM department will bring JCOM alumnus Reed Cowan, a TV news anchor in Miami and director/producer of a controversial movie called 8: The Mormon Proposition, to campus on Oct. 21 (be there if you can!). The movie examines being gay in Utah, same-sex marriage issues, and the Prop 8 campaign that revoked same-sex marriage in California in 2008. That’s going to the Supreme Court, too. For USU, this is an opportunity to talk about these issues.
But I digress. The point is that same-sex marriage and gay issues are extremely incendiary everywhere, and so in looking at this topic from a media smarts perspective, it’s important to remember that the emotions accompanying the debate can skew the conversation. That is part of the truthiness project—what is “real,” and how do we define that in the mass media? You will have to spend a little time understanding what the issues are for yourself (is homosexuality “immoral”? If so, so what? why? Do gay people threaten the rest of society? How? What is the overriding issue in this conversation? and what is the mass media’s role in the societal discussion?)
We need to remember what the mass media can do in society, and what the media’s responsibility is. The Hutchins Commission (see your readings) offers a model for “social responsibility” (but how do we decide what that means?). Ethics codes from groups like the Society of Professional Journalists offer some yardsticks to measure media ethics. The first is to “minimize harm,” which is a lot like the Hippocratic Oath for doctors: “First, do no harm.” So how do the media accomplish that while reporting on topics like race or same-sex issues or women’s rights, all of which can become highly charged for the individuals involved? As communicators, do we report the emotion and ramp up the rhetoric for society, or can we find ways to make sense of these issues so that our neighbors can make informed decisions?
So, yes, Kai (and the rest of you). This is a great news topic to examine. But it’s also complicated by, well, human beings, from our own individual selective perceptions to how the issues are framed in the mass media, and how we—individually and in the mass media—cultivate opinions and perspectives on what we think we “know” about the issues and the world.
This is why I love being a professor of interesting stuff.
Ted Pease
Sunday, September 26, 2010
.
Smarts Project #1—Truthiness
“Truthiness is what you want the facts to be as opposed to what the facts are, what feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support.”
—Stephen Colbert
pundit/philosopher
The Project: This project asks you to pick a current news topic, and compare the facts of the issue (as confirmed by a variety of nonpartisan news fact-checking services, listed below), and how the issue is reported/framed by 1) Fox News and 2) Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and Stephen Colbert’s “The Colbert Report.”
Rationale: Fox News is the most-watched cable news network, attracting twice as many viewers as the other two cable news networks, CNN and MSNBC. Research shows that only 29% of Americans “say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate.” At the same time, “faux journalist” Jon Stewart is cited as the “most trusted” newscaster in America, and many self-described conservatives believe that Stephen Colbert shares their values and beliefs. Further, despite its “fair & balanced” claims, Fox seems more overtly partisan than other news networks (which all have their own biases, too), and so Fox misstatements are easier to identify.
Project Goal: Research, analyze and compare the true facts of a newsworthy issue, and then compare the facts to the ways the issue is framed by Fox News and by “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” Fox is “real” news” and Stewart/Colbert are “faux” news. Whose “truth” is truer to the facts, as you can find and present them?
Directions:
1. Select a topic (see some on the list below or propose your own current issue to research).
• “Birthers” Movement
• Gulf oil drilling
• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Gays in the military
• Global warming/climate change
• Health care reform
• Immigration
• Racism & President Obama
• Same-sex marriage
• Other: describe and make a case
2. Research the topic for its “truth” from the non-partisan online fact-check sources below. Document the facts of your issue. How confident are you about what you think is true about the facts?
• News media or scholarly research (fully documented—How true/truthy are these?)
• Annenberg Political Fact Check
• Fact Checker
• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
• Media Matters for America
• PolitiFact
3. Framing:
A. How have the topics been framed by Fox News channel?
• Are audiences presented with more “truth” or “truthiness” by Fox journalists and pundits?
• How well are Fox’s fact-claims supported by evidence? Are any fact-claims erroneous? Is important information omitted, distorted, or taken out of context?
• Do the sources cited reveal favoritism, partisan bias, or omission of relevant viewpoints?
• Be specific, using several examples to support your arguments.
B. ... And by Stewart/Colbert?
Compare the facts from your research to the “coverage” of the topic on “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.”
• How does Fox coverage of your topic compare to the “fake” news reporting by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert?
• Which represents more “truth”?
5. Relate your findings to code of ethics for journalists, media effects theories/concepts. Be specific. (See mass comm theories and list of ethics codes.) Here’s the point: Journalistic ethics codes all espouse “truth” and “do no harm” and other central principles of social responsibility of the mass media. How do your news reports perform? Be specific.
6. Include URLs for clips of specific episodes and news segments to support your conclusions. (Video clips of most news segments are available online.)
Reporting Options
You must report on your project to the class. Send essay/blog URL to Dr. Ted, who will post your report to the class blog.
1. Essay: You may write a 1,200- to 1,500-word essay (plus bibliography and endnotes). Click here for essay guidelines.
or
2. Blog (or other multimedia blockbuster): Create a multimedia project (blog, power point presentation, or “documentary”). Click here for a past Smarts student YouTube example. Part1. Part2.
Deadlines:
• Proposal: Propose a fully developed topic and rationale to Dr. Ted (by email) by Monday, Oct. 4
• Project Due: Monday, Oct. 18
Content: Your project simply identifies and reports the facts (according to reliable sources) on an important social/cultural/political issue, examines how it is framed by Fox and Stewart/Colbert, and evaluates how well We the People are being informed. Consider the mass comm. theories and media literacy concepts we’ve examined: How is the issue framed? How is it skewed? What is the agenda being set by the way the issue is presented? What larger perceptions are cultivated by the mass media? Are we (in the immortal words of the syllabus) being lied to, boys and girls? In what specific ways?
NOTE: Although media pundits and commentators do not have the same ethical responsibilities as news journalists, pundits do share many of their ethical responsibilities. For example even opinion writers and pundits must:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Never report anything known to be false.
3. Never manipulate images or sounds in ways that may be misleading.
4. Resist distortions that obscure the importance of events. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
5. Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders.
ALSO . . . The object is NOT for you to take a position on your topic. This is not about your opinion, but about your analysis of how the issues are reported in these news media, and how well the reporting you find conforms to ethical goals of responsible journalists.
Smarts Project #1—Truthiness
Truth vs. “Truthiness”
Are the news media telling us what/how/when/why? we think?
“Truthiness is what you want the facts to be as opposed to what the facts are, what feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support.”
—Stephen Colbert
pundit/philosopher
The Project: This project asks you to pick a current news topic, and compare the facts of the issue (as confirmed by a variety of nonpartisan news fact-checking services, listed below), and how the issue is reported/framed by 1) Fox News and 2) Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and Stephen Colbert’s “The Colbert Report.”
Rationale: Fox News is the most-watched cable news network, attracting twice as many viewers as the other two cable news networks, CNN and MSNBC. Research shows that only 29% of Americans “say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate.” At the same time, “faux journalist” Jon Stewart is cited as the “most trusted” newscaster in America, and many self-described conservatives believe that Stephen Colbert shares their values and beliefs. Further, despite its “fair & balanced” claims, Fox seems more overtly partisan than other news networks (which all have their own biases, too), and so Fox misstatements are easier to identify.
Project Goal: Research, analyze and compare the true facts of a newsworthy issue, and then compare the facts to the ways the issue is framed by Fox News and by “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” Fox is “real” news” and Stewart/Colbert are “faux” news. Whose “truth” is truer to the facts, as you can find and present them?
Directions:
1. Select a topic (see some on the list below or propose your own current issue to research).
• “Birthers” Movement
• Gulf oil drilling
• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Gays in the military
• Global warming/climate change
• Health care reform
• Immigration
• Racism & President Obama
• Same-sex marriage
• Other: describe and make a case
2. Research the topic for its “truth” from the non-partisan online fact-check sources below. Document the facts of your issue. How confident are you about what you think is true about the facts?
• News media or scholarly research (fully documented—How true/truthy are these?)
• Annenberg Political Fact Check
• Fact Checker
• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
• Media Matters for America
• PolitiFact
3. Framing:
A. How have the topics been framed by Fox News channel?
• Are audiences presented with more “truth” or “truthiness” by Fox journalists and pundits?
• How well are Fox’s fact-claims supported by evidence? Are any fact-claims erroneous? Is important information omitted, distorted, or taken out of context?
• Do the sources cited reveal favoritism, partisan bias, or omission of relevant viewpoints?
• Be specific, using several examples to support your arguments.
B. ... And by Stewart/Colbert?
Compare the facts from your research to the “coverage” of the topic on “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.”
• How does Fox coverage of your topic compare to the “fake” news reporting by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert?
• Which represents more “truth”?
5. Relate your findings to code of ethics for journalists, media effects theories/concepts. Be specific. (See mass comm theories and list of ethics codes.) Here’s the point: Journalistic ethics codes all espouse “truth” and “do no harm” and other central principles of social responsibility of the mass media. How do your news reports perform? Be specific.
6. Include URLs for clips of specific episodes and news segments to support your conclusions. (Video clips of most news segments are available online.)
Reporting Options
You must report on your project to the class. Send essay/blog URL to Dr. Ted, who will post your report to the class blog.
1. Essay: You may write a 1,200- to 1,500-word essay (plus bibliography and endnotes). Click here for essay guidelines.
or
2. Blog (or other multimedia blockbuster): Create a multimedia project (blog, power point presentation, or “documentary”). Click here for a past Smarts student YouTube example. Part1. Part2.
Deadlines:
• Proposal: Propose a fully developed topic and rationale to Dr. Ted (by email) by Monday, Oct. 4
• Project Due: Monday, Oct. 18
Content: Your project simply identifies and reports the facts (according to reliable sources) on an important social/cultural/political issue, examines how it is framed by Fox and Stewart/Colbert, and evaluates how well We the People are being informed. Consider the mass comm. theories and media literacy concepts we’ve examined: How is the issue framed? How is it skewed? What is the agenda being set by the way the issue is presented? What larger perceptions are cultivated by the mass media? Are we (in the immortal words of the syllabus) being lied to, boys and girls? In what specific ways?
NOTE: Although media pundits and commentators do not have the same ethical responsibilities as news journalists, pundits do share many of their ethical responsibilities. For example even opinion writers and pundits must:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Never report anything known to be false.
3. Never manipulate images or sounds in ways that may be misleading.
4. Resist distortions that obscure the importance of events. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
5. Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders.
ALSO . . . The object is NOT for you to take a position on your topic. This is not about your opinion, but about your analysis of how the issues are reported in these news media, and how well the reporting you find conforms to ethical goals of responsible journalists.
Colbert on Migrant Workers
.
Alert Media Smartie Eric Budd offers the following
Eric writes: “I thought you would appreciate this if you hadn’t seen it already.” Colbert Testifies on Capitol Hill: Migrant Workers.
I urge all Smarties to check out Eric’s post. Things to think about as you do:
1) If you don’t know the background of this testimony and why Stephen Colbert is testifying before Congress, find out.
2) What is Colbert’s e
xpertise in migrant labor?
3) For the media-literate among us, why is Colbert’s engagement with this issue more than a comic riff?
4) What is your reaction to the process of Congressional process, as reflected by this item (and whatever else you can find related to this hearing)? (and how come so few of the people behind Colbert have smile muscles?)
5) Congressman Conyers (from what state? What political party?) makes these statements: a) he asks Colbert to leave the room, and b) he commends Colbert on his planned event on Oct. 30 in DC. What is that?
From a Smartie perspective: What strikes you about this as a part of the role of the mass media in the political process and public engagement with an issue?
Seriously. What is “truth” and what is “truthiness,” and how does this example of the political process move either forward?
Alert Media Smartie Eric Budd offers the following
Eric writes: “I thought you would appreciate this if you hadn’t seen it already.” Colbert Testifies on Capitol Hill: Migrant Workers.
I urge all Smarties to check out Eric’s post. Things to think about as you do:
1) If you don’t know the background of this testimony and why Stephen Colbert is testifying before Congress, find out.
2) What is Colbert’s e
xpertise in migrant labor?3) For the media-literate among us, why is Colbert’s engagement with this issue more than a comic riff?
4) What is your reaction to the process of Congressional process, as reflected by this item (and whatever else you can find related to this hearing)? (and how come so few of the people behind Colbert have smile muscles?)
5) Congressman Conyers (from what state? What political party?) makes these statements: a) he asks Colbert to leave the room, and b) he commends Colbert on his planned event on Oct. 30 in DC. What is that?
From a Smartie perspective: What strikes you about this as a part of the role of the mass media in the political process and public engagement with an issue?
Seriously. What is “truth” and what is “truthiness,” and how does this example of the political process move either forward?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Media Myths Answered
.
Get Smart(er)!
.
Dear Smarties: Professor Brenda Cooper and I started compiling items for the “media myths” quiz many years ago when we noticed how many weird stories (and I’m not talking about “News of the Weird”) routinely circulate in the popular media. At first, these things were just funny: How could people be so gullible? But more recently we can see that certain big players in public discourse have moved from the whacko fringes into the mainstream, resulting in misinformation that is not funny, but actually misleads sizable portions of the population.
One recent example is the Pew Center poll that showed major percentages of “normal” Americans believing that Barack Obama is a) a radical practicing Muslim who was raised in a Muslim madrasah; and b) Obama was not born in America. A decade ago this stuff would be banner headlines on Weekly World News (I have one from the 1980s: DONOR WANTS KIDNEY BACK! but today they're usually about sexy aliens), and would be worth little more than a chuckle at the supermarket checkout. But now, “fair and balanced” has been coopted by “loud and ridiculous” in the “responsible” press—a Spring issue of American Journalism Review documents how the mainstream news media out-whackoed the whacko press with increasingly lurid stories about golfer Tiger Woods that were completely unsubstantiated. Sure, Woods is a dawg and a philanderer, but serious news outlets from the “Today Show” to major newspapers simply repeated claims by a string of women who said they’d had affairs with him, without ever getting confirmation beyond their own stories.
In other areas, it also should be clear from the “myths” quiz that demographic and economic factors play important roles in the content of news, entertainment and advertising content. For example, what is the impact of so many white, middle-class men being in charge of so much of media content? As we discuss in the theories section this week, individual selective perception inevitably (but not necessarily intentionally) plays a role in how individual reporters or directors frame their stories.
Of course they do! A white, middle-class man sees and understands the world and what’s “real” and “true” differently than a, say, white, middle-class woman or—certainly—a 20-so
mething Palestinian or a 75-year-old black woman from Birmingham, Alabama. I see the world differently than you do, and my mother sees the world differently than I do. Are we ideologically driven? Probably not. (Some are, but I read in the Weekly World News that Glenn Beck is an alien, which explains a lot...) It’s just that different people see and understand events from different perspectives. That’s a good thing in a free society. It also means that we all need to consider the source of our information (from Glenn Beck to Rachel Maddow to Ted Pease) and the source’s perspectives and possible goals.
Anyway, I meant to send you the “answers” to the Media Myths Quiz over the weekend. You can find them here. Check them against your answers, and think about some of the implications of these items and what they mean to you, personally, in your media use and information consumption, and what they might mean to the larger society. Media Myths Answered.
Smarten Up!
Dr. Ted Professor of Interesting Stuff
Get Smart(er)!
.
Dear Smarties: Professor Brenda Cooper and I started compiling items for the “media myths” quiz many years ago when we noticed how many weird stories (and I’m not talking about “News of the Weird”) routinely circulate in the popular media. At first, these things were just funny: How could people be so gullible? But more recently we can see that certain big players in public discourse have moved from the whacko fringes into the mainstream, resulting in misinformation that is not funny, but actually misleads sizable portions of the population.
One recent example is the Pew Center poll that showed major percentages of “normal” Americans believing that Barack Obama is a) a radical practicing Muslim who was raised in a Muslim madrasah; and b) Obama was not born in America. A decade ago this stuff would be banner headlines on Weekly World News (I have one from the 1980s: DONOR WANTS KIDNEY BACK! but today they're usually about sexy aliens), and would be worth little more than a chuckle at the supermarket checkout. But now, “fair and balanced” has been coopted by “loud and ridiculous” in the “responsible” press—a Spring issue of American Journalism Review documents how the mainstream news media out-whackoed the whacko press with increasingly lurid stories about golfer Tiger Woods that were completely unsubstantiated. Sure, Woods is a dawg and a philanderer, but serious news outlets from the “Today Show” to major newspapers simply repeated claims by a string of women who said they’d had affairs with him, without ever getting confirmation beyond their own stories. In other areas, it also should be clear from the “myths” quiz that demographic and economic factors play important roles in the content of news, entertainment and advertising content. For example, what is the impact of so many white, middle-class men being in charge of so much of media content? As we discuss in the theories section this week, individual selective perception inevitably (but not necessarily intentionally) plays a role in how individual reporters or directors frame their stories.
Of course they do! A white, middle-class man sees and understands the world and what’s “real” and “true” differently than a, say, white, middle-class woman or—certainly—a 20-so
mething Palestinian or a 75-year-old black woman from Birmingham, Alabama. I see the world differently than you do, and my mother sees the world differently than I do. Are we ideologically driven? Probably not. (Some are, but I read in the Weekly World News that Glenn Beck is an alien, which explains a lot...) It’s just that different people see and understand events from different perspectives. That’s a good thing in a free society. It also means that we all need to consider the source of our information (from Glenn Beck to Rachel Maddow to Ted Pease) and the source’s perspectives and possible goals.Anyway, I meant to send you the “answers” to the Media Myths Quiz over the weekend. You can find them here. Check them against your answers, and think about some of the implications of these items and what they mean to you, personally, in your media use and information consumption, and what they might mean to the larger society. Media Myths Answered.
Smarten Up!
Dr. Ted Professor of Interesting Stuff
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
