This week, I’d like everyone to pay close attention to how the news media report Saturday’s join Rally/March to Restore Sanity and/or Fear by Mssrs. Stewart & Colbert on the Washington Mall. Please send to this blog items that frame the story in particular ways that you find of interest in the context of Media Smartiness, with your commentary on how the event is being framed (truthiness)? Was this just a big gag? Do media reports seem to think it was a joke, a spoof, a real thing?
Also this week: Midterm Elections! (no, not an exam....!) Tuesday is election day, and the results might (probably) completely change Congress. Keep an eye out for how the press is spinning this story as well. How are the press and pundits telling us how to think about the election results? What is your analysis of the role the mass media in the run-up to the elections and how they want us to understand them?
COMING ATTRACTIONS: The general schedule for the last five weeks of the semester includes the following special assignments:
I. Project #2: Your choice of
a) Editorial Cartoons: How cartoonists frame an issue
b) Hollywood: How movies reinvent history
c) children and mass media
(Due Dec. 6; details posted separately—click here.)
II. Final Exam will be emailed to you on Monday, Dec. 6, and will be due by Monday, Dec. 13.
THIS WEEK’S READINGS:
• Essay: On Objectivity
• Examples: Gatekeeping & Framing
• SmartTalk
• Quiz
I really liked the paragraph that talked about how professional objectivity is more a moral philosophy. I think that objectivity is difficult in a professional way. Is there always just one correct answer?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the media coverage of the Rally to Restore Sanity - I have to say that I was wrong in my assumptions when answering yesterday's quiz question. CNN did a very fair job of reporting the event - unlike my prediction that they would treat it like a hot dog eating contest. And I predicted fair coverage from NY Times and was disappointed. Despite grand efforts to keep the event non-partisan, non-political, the Times said "It was a Democratic rally without a Democratic politician," and they made it a point (??) to correct their former statement that the crowd stretched all the way to the Washington Monument - minimizing the size of the attendance. It's strange to me that most media sources seem to be intentionally steering clear of the subject of attendance size. CBS (thank you!) came out and estimated attendance to be approx. 215,000 according to arial shots. A Canadian news source that was present agrees with that general number. Fox News only refers to the 60,000 number that was on the event permit. Fox frames it as a liberal leftist event, and their report from Joseph Bland focusses on rally attendees' focus on themes such as marijuana legalization and anti-tea-party demonstrations - subjects that are not mentioned in most other reports at all (and that I did not see much of any of in the live feed either). Frazier Moore, AP gives more credit to the event, called it a "Stirring pep talk and reality check", and Stephanie Condon, CBS News said the rally attracted "moderates who want to be heard." John P. Avlon, CNN Contributor said Stewart's rally point was "don't divide us." I could find very little on Fox about the rally this morning - they seem to be pretending it did not occur, or was not newsworthy. Maybe there will be more later after some strategy huddles. By the way, the Washington Post has a great link to a video of Jon Stewart's closing speech... well worth listening to if you haven't already.
ReplyDeleteaerial shots... sorry... ((blushing))
ReplyDeleteI've been keeping up with the election tonight on a few different channels, and the way they're reporting the results really makes you realize how obvious their attempts at framing the information is. In one of the main races for Senate majority, on MSNBC, analysts are saying 'There are about 12 states that are up for grabs for another senate spot, and the Republicans desperately need to take at least 10 of them in order to win Senate majority, and this is very highly unlikely, even for them."
ReplyDeleteOver on Fox News, reporting on almost the exact same information, they say it as a huge victory as "Way to go! We've got it completely tied up, we've accomplished exactly what we're looking to." Obviously, not in those exact words, but the general change in mentality from one station to the other is so significant, especially on a night like this. Anyone who is watching the updates can see the subtleties (or COMPLETE lack thereof) of the anchors reporting on the election coverage. It's almost humorous now that I'm trying to view it from a different angle.
Also, after reading some of the reporting, I've decided that Yahoo! News has the most unbiased coverage out there. They're calling it exactly how it's happening, and providing little commentary.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_senate In case you were curious.
I was about to say the exact same thing Eric! I've been watching Yahoo's updates more then CNN's, MSNBC'S, or Fox's updates. Fox obviously is promoting the Republican party while CNN is promoting the Democratic. MSNBC is reporting the voting like it's a soccer match, and by the end of the day I just want an update on who is leading. (Plain & simple!) I also wanted to comment on the "Objectivity" essay; Lippmann made a great observation of the news. "Without reliable information, he said, news is all second-hand, and society responds NOT to facts, but to OPINIONS." As I've been watching the news, that's exactly happening. Opinions are being thrown left and right, while the facts are placed on the back burner.
ReplyDeleteRomina Nedakovic
Anne Garrels was awesome! It is amazing how she has seen the media evolve right in front of her own eyes. Her story about the video camera was hilarious, but it's crazy to hear what they had to do to obtain a single tape. I've seen the evolution of the DVD, Blueray, the internet, and my favorite Facebook! She has seen the evolution of T.V, video, the cell phone, and much more. I found this quote interesting,"Only being on the ground, can you truly report events." Stories are not the same if you haven't actually been to the site and she has been to plenty. Her stories were shocking and entertaining, but she got to see and understand the military in ways I never will. Obviously, she has had years of experience in her field, and she has learned,"If you have something to say, say it well." What summed up the lecture for me was her dog sitting story of "Hodgy"... priceless!
ReplyDeleteRomina Nedakovic
I would have to say that the coverage I saw of the rally seemed pretty accurate. Most of the major networks seems to give fair and honest coverage. I would have to say though that they media seemed to want to portray the rally as a "democratic" event. Even though the rally's were not put on by the democratic party the media seemed to frame it that way. Some networks such as Fox news could have given more attention to these events. Due to the large number in attendance I felt Fox could have given the rally's a little more air time. And as far as the elections were covered in the media, it seemed to me that it depended on which station you watched as to what information you'd be given. Fox as usual was promoting the Republican party, and other networks seemed to lean more Democratic. I agree with Romina that Yahoo is definitely a better source of unbiased information.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Harries