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
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Syllabus • Fall 2010
.
JCOM 2010 • MEDIA SMARTS
Making Sense of the Information Age (the online edition)
Professor Ted Pease (ted.pease@usu.edu)
Department of Journalism & Communication
Utah State University • Fall 2010
Making Sense of the Information Age (the online edition)
Professor Ted Pease (ted.pease@usu.edu)
Department of Journalism & Communication
Utah State University • Fall 2010
• Email: Ted.Pease@usu.edu
• Website: USU Blackboard; Blog—you’re here! (additional materials at AskDrTed)
• Required Text: John McManus, Detecting Bull: How to Identify Bias and Junk in Print, Broadcast and on the Wild Web (2009), Purchase (or “rent”) online. Go to the Detecting Bull website and click on “buy/rent” link at left. Follow the directions. Permanent copy of entire book: $23.95. Temporary copy (20 weeks): $14.95. Also available in a dead-tree version for $24.95—see website for details. (I recommend the online version, because it's cool and because it is full of hotlinks to great extra URLs. On the other hand, you can mark up the paper version. Your call.)
• Other Resources: Look at the INDEX at left on the blog for weekly assignments, readings, quizzes and whatnot. See also Today’s WORD on Journalism and AskDrTed; occasional hilarious “Teddy TV” lectures will be posted on Blackboard.
• Office: 310B Animal Science (435-797-3293)
Preamble: Wise Guys
1. Whose Reality?
“I don’t fret about TV because it’s decadent or shortens your attention span or leads to murder. It worries me because it alters perception. TV, and the culture it anchors, masks
and drowns out the subtle and vital information that
contact with the real world once provided.”
—Bill McKibben, author, The Age of Missing Information, 1993
2. Critical Thinking
“Question Authority!” –1970s slogan
3. The Power of Words
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect.
If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”
—Tom Stoppard, playwright, 1967
4. How Do We Know What We (Think We) Know?
“I believe television is going to be the test of the modern world,
and that in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision we shall discover
either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace, or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television—of that I am quite sure.”
—E.B. White, author, 1938
• • • • •
What we’ll do
Welcome to Media Smarts, where we equip you to make sense of the information age—journalism, movies, advertising, books, TV, the Internet, radio. Some issues we’ll discuss and explore:
1) We’re being lied to, boys and girls.
2) The way we are told to see the world is not necessarily the way it really is.
3) Trying to operate in a free and participatory democracy without accurate knowledge and information is like piloting a boat through the fog without radar or GPS.
The central question driving Media Smarts is this: How do we know what we (think we) know about _____________? fill in the blank: the economy? Iraq? Lady Gaga? Barack Obama? Hair care? Health issues? Global warming?
In this information age (which author Bill McKibben said should more correctly be termed an age of missing information), nearly every waking moment is somehow affected by the mass media, which teach us to see the world in particular ways. The media teach us to value certain lifestyles and norms and to reject others; to desire certain products—food, cars, gadgets, political figures; how to perceive different groups of people based on their gender, racial background, skin color, height, weight, eye color, or religion.
This constant diet of mass media images and values skews how we as individuals and we as a society see and understand the world.
The goal of this course is to help you see past the mass media’s version of the world, and to give you the analytical and critical thinking skills you’ll need to take the mass media version with a grain of skepticism, and to make sense of the world for yourself.
During the semester, we will develop critical thinking skills—informed skepticism—to explore whether, when, how, and to what extent the mass media—both news and entertainment—can influence events and people’s view and understanding of them, focusing on how mass media messages can cultivate perceptions, perspectives and attitudes, particularly in areas of gender, racial diversity, violence, children, and as regards how Americans “know” their own history. We’ll start with general principles of media literacy, and then focus specifically on how the mass media present “reality”—political, social and cultural.
Course Goals: To expand students’ recognition of the role of mass media versions of “truth,” and their critical thinking and analytical skills to make them more savvy consumers of mass media. In particular, the course will ask students to analyze and evaluate various mass media versions of historical events, cultural norms, and individuals in society.
The core question for this course is, How do we know what we know about the world and the people and events in it, and how sure we are of those “facts”? (Note: This question is nicely illustrated in the current debate about whether President Obama was born in this country, and whether he is a Christian or a Muslim: 27% of everyone (and 41% of Republicans) responding to a Pew Research Center poll said they think Obama is a Muslim. What is a “fact”? Whose “facts”?)
We will examine the unique and essential social interaction between the individual and the mass media:
a) How do mass media—from newspapers to TV and radio to Hollywood and the Internet—frame the world and the people in it?
b) How does this affect the press, people, culture, societies and participatory democracy?
c) What stories about cultural norms (race, gender, society, politics, etc.) are told?
d) And how do we learn to “see” and understand the world through such lessons?
Children, of course, are the most susceptible victims of media images and messages. Humor columnist Erma Bombeck once said, “In general, my children refuse to eat anything that hasn’t danced on television.”
Most Americans under the age of 50 were raised on such a diet; the world has been created for us, and isn’t real unless we’ve seen it on the tube, or on YouTube. In predicting more than 45 years ago how the information age would change the world, Canadian sociologist Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) used the analogy of a fish. He said he didn’t know who discovered water, but he was fairly certain it wasn’t a fish.
Hunh????
Well, like fish in a pond, McLuhan suggested, most of us in the information age are unsuspecting and uncritical about the mass media environment in which we live. We eat TV, we breathe media messages, we overhear news and rumors, and unknowingly absorb advertising and cultural attitudes through our gills and into our psyches and worldviews.
This represents an enormous responsibility both for the producers of mass media messages, and for those who consume them. How healthy is this diet?
As beat-era poet Allen Ginsberg said, “Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.” The fundamental assumption of Media Smarts is that most of us are so accustomed to the mass mediated world of the 21st century that we don’t even notice the environment in which we live, the mass media diet that we consume and digest, and which becomes part of what and who we are, and how we think about and perceive the world.
“Television tends to be the main centerpiece in our culture,” says Professor Gary Edgerton. “TV in a sense creates instant history . . . that shapes how we think about an event.” Even beyond the sit-com or QVC or reality-show fads—which help us learn from TV what we value and how we should live—most Americans learn what they think they “know” about historical events and people from how they are depicted and framed in TV or movies. For example, students can “understand” the events of Pearl Harbor only with Ben Affleck in the middle of them. Many Americans “know” what they think they know about the death of President John F. Kennedy from Oliver Stone’s movie. The story of D-Day is told by Tom Hanks going ashore at Normandy to find a soldier named Private Ryan.This is how many people today “know” the world. I believe that today’s students—you guys—are so steeped in mass media from infancy that you may need remedial critical thinking skills to help you recognize how entertainment media affect perceptions of both current and historical “reality.” That’s not intended as a criticism—it’s not your fault that, as philosopher-king Bart Simpson told Homer and Marge, “It’s just hard not to listen to TV—it’s spent so much more time raising us than you have.”
Media content-producers—which means not only newspapers and Hollywood producers, but anyone with an Internet connection or a Twitter account—decide what to include and exclude in their messages, what to highlight or downplay in order to frame “facts” the way they want. This may be intentional to mislead and misrepresent, but it easily might also be unintentional: we all see and know the world in our own ways.
“Truth” is in the eye and mind of the beholder—often diluted, distorted and even fabricated by the media to sell you something, to privilege ideologies or social class, to distort gender and race, and otherwise to reshape social reality.
In the process, in a mass media marketplace that has become more like “reality” for most Americans than reality itself, the stories we tell and the stories we learn through films, TV and more broadly in popular culture pre-empt truth, and reshape reality for most American media consumers.
In Media Smarts, students also examine the economic, political, and cultural environment that influences the ways in which society is depicted and limited by the mass media. By the end of the semester, students will have practiced critical and analytical skills in several areas that will help them become more critical consumers of all media products.
Text, assignments & grading
Because this is an online course, and exists within a context of journalism and the role and performance of the press and the mass media, our readings will be online articles or other materials placed on the class website.
Aside from assigned online readings, which you will find listed from week to week on the blog, you will need the online “book,” Detecting Bull, which you can purchase or “rent” for the semester (see details at the top of the syllabus).
Other assignments will be posted through this blog week-by-week.
Assignments and Grading: (Subject to change)
This is a critical thinking course. It’s also a talking (or emailing) and writing course. Students will present their thoughts on mass media events and the readings on each week’s posts on the Smarts blog. Details on this requirement to follow separately.
1. Quizzes on readings/news 25 pts
2. Projects: Critical essays/reaction papers or blog projects 10 pts & 20 pts
3. SmartTalk participation 15 pts
4. Exams: Midterm 15 pts; Final 15 pts
Total = 100 pts
• Quizzes: Every week (more or less) on readings and the news.
• Projects: Two short (750 wds) essays—or, alternatively, create a blog—on assigned topics, using extensive citation of relevant articles and sources. Details to come.
• SmartTalk: Every week you will encounter readings or come across stuff on your own that pushes your buttons about the intersection of mass media and your life. When this happens, I want you to post your rants on that week’s assignment site on the blog (for example, click here the Week1 posting—if there were something that you wanted to rant about, you would click on “comments” at the bottom of the post, and write your rant in the little box. You can “comment as” there either using your gmail or aggiemail address, or you may click anonymous).
Comment/kibbitz/rant regularly on the blog. Sometimes Professor Pease will start a thread. Sometimes the WORD will push your buttons (like this one, which makes me CRAZY....) Everyone must initiate a substantive thread on the readings or a current media issue, as well as comment/respond substantively to someone else’s post.You can comment on the readings, on Today’s WORD on Journalism (which you will receive by email daily) or on anything else that strikes you in news about the media or in the media themselves. I expect you to comment substantively (more than, “Yeah! I agree!”) at least 12 times during the semester, both initiating your own subjects and responding to others’ rants. Check Week1 scroll down for an example from last semester.
• Exams: Comprehensive midterm (~Week8) and final exams. Short answer and essays.
• Other grading issues: The instructor takes no prisoners when it comes to writing, grammar, spelling, mechanics, etc. Fair warning. Obviously, DEADLINES ARE ABSOLUTE. That’s why they’re called deadlines. In the real world, missing deadlines means you don't get in the paper; in this class, missing deadline means zero for the assignment.
Housekeeping Details: Some cautions, instructions and threats. Ask anyone; Pease is an irascible old poop and can be testy at times.
Academic Honesty: The University expects students and faculty alike to maintain the highest standards of academic honesty (for a complete definition, see University Catalogue or the Code of Policies and Procedures for Students at Utah State University, Article V, Section 3). The policy states:
“[C]heating, falsification or plagiarism can result in warning, grade reduction, probation, suspension, expulsion, payment of damages, withholding of transcripts, withholding of degrees, removal a class, performance of community service, referral to appropriate counseling" or other penalties as the university judiciary may deem appropriate.
Because public trust and personal credibility are essential to journalists and other professional communicators, I adhere to the JCOM department’s zero-tolerance policy regarding academic dishonesty: Cheaters fail the class and are expelled from the JCOM major. As per the USU Student Code, any documented form of academic dishonesty—including plagiarism—will result in an automatic F in the course and a report to the dean of the college and the USU vice president for student services. If you have questions about what’s acceptable work under strict codes of academic honesty, see the USU Code of Policies and Procedures for Students, or consult your professor. Any suspicious work may be submitted to a web database. For guidance on plagiarism and how to avoid it, see this website.
Decorum: It’s a funny thing about email and other online communication—people often type things that they would NEVER say in a face-to-face setting, sometimes without thinking. So please read your emails out loud to yourselves (this also will help with typos and stoopid language) and count to 10 before sending or posting. We’re all in this together. That means that we will need each other in order to succeed. And that means that everyone is expected to treat everyone else with fairness, courtesy and honesty. Central to this subject matter is the willingness to examine our own beliefs and how we arrived at them, and to acknowledge that others may see the world differently. So I hope we all will be able to express and consider opinions collegially, in the spirit of open inquiry. Let us agree to disagree, if necessary, and to accommodate contrarian viewpoints and differing perspectives. Disruptive or abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Disclaimer: The instructor has no desire to offend anyone’s personal or cultural beliefs, and he apologizes in advance if he does so inadvertently. But students should be aware that journalism (and advanced education) often deals with issues and content that some may find disagreeable—from profanity and offensive attitudes and perspectives that may make you uncomfortable. But that’s the business or examining society and becoming media-savvy and making sense of the world. It’s a critically important job for every citizen of a free society. Please do tell me if you have problems with any of the material, and we will try to accommodate if possible.
Finally, any rumors that you may have heard that Professor Pease is a heartless, obdurate, irritable, demanding, tough, pugnacious, unpleasant SOB probably falls short (and wide) of the truth. The fact is that I will press you hard this semester to develop an advanced level of critical thinking and analysis required for success in the information age. But if you're having a problem—with this class or anything else—please feel free to call or email me, or for those of you on-campus, come find me in my office, for a talk, a coke, career advice, a crying towel or whatever.§ § §
SCHEDULE
(subject to change—pay attention!)
The advantage to online courses is that you can do the work as your schedule permits, and in your pajamas if you want. In fact, Professor Pease may be in his jammies even now (picture that! Well, actually, don’t....). But you do have to complete the assignments when they are due. Students who wait until the end of the semester to submit everything in a pile will flunk.
The weekly assignments will appear as a single hotlink (ex: Week 1...) on Blackboard, linking to details on our blog. You don’t have to go through Blackboard—bookmark the Media Smarts blog on your computer, and just do your work there. There is an INDEX link in the upper lefthand corner of the blog page, and the week-by-week links also appear in that column. There’s a lot of other fabulous stuff there, too, for the curious or bored, and more will be added as the semester goes on.
§ § §
JCOM 2010 (online edition)—Media Smarts Schedule F10 (subject to change)
NOTE: Here’s a start on our readings schedule, which I will add to on the weekly listings, so click on those links regularly for updates. This is your responsibility.
WEEK 1 Aug. 30
• Get acquainted with our Blackboard site and the Media Smarts blog.
• Read “First Thing—Read This!” and syllabus closely.
• Order John McManus’ Detecting Bull online. Here’s how-to...
• Quiz on syllabus will be emailed.
• Students post introductions of themselves on “About Us” post on blog.
WEEK 2 Sept. 6
Starters: Yes, Virginia, I DO Expect You to THINK!—Stephen Colbert clip.
How Do We Know What We Think We Know?
READINGS:
• McManus, Intro Chapter (pp. 1-4)
• What Is Media Smarts? “Media Smarts—Making Sense of the Information Age,” by Ted Pease & Brenda Cooper
• “Media Myths” quiz.
• SmartTalk at Week2 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 3 Sept. 13
• Video: Billy Joel condenses history
• Lecture Notes: Media Literacy: How do we know what we think we know? to accompany an online video on “TeddyTV” (details to come)
• READINGS: Media Literacy
• “What is media literacy?”
• “Some principles of media literacy” and online handout from DrTed
• McManus, Ch. 1 (pp. 1-15)
• SmartTalk at Week3 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 4 Sept. 20
READINGS on Mass Communication Theories—How does this stuff work?:
• Mass Communication Theories
• McManus, Ch. 2 (pp. 1-10): Truth v. Truthiness
• Pease column: McLuhan’s Fish
• Start thinking about Truthiness Project, due Friday, Oct. 15.
• SmartTalk at Week4 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 5 Sept. 27
READINGS: Journalism Ethics—NOT an Oxymoron! A Free & Responsible Press
• Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics; other professional ethics codes.
• Social Responsibility: “The Philosophical Underpinnings of Free Expression in Society,” by Edward C. Pease; the Hutchins and Kerner commissions
• SmartTalk at Week5 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 6 Oct. 4
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week6 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 7 Oct. 11
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week7 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 8 Oct. 18
See Blog
• Midterm Exam
• SmartTalk at Week8 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 9 Oct. 25
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week9 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 10 Nov. 1
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week10 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 11 Nov. 8
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week11 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 12 Nov. 15
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week12 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 13 Nov. 22
See Blog
Thanksgiving Week
WEEK 14 Nov. 29
See Blog
• SmartTalk at Week14 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
WEEK 15 Dec. 6
See Blog
Last day of classes: Dec. 10
• SmartTalk at Week15 on blog
• Quiz will be emailed.
FINAL EXAM WEEK Dec. 13
Saturday, February 13, 2010
More Truthiness: Climate Change
.
Global Warming, Global Schmarming
See!? It’s SNOWING! Take that, Al Gore!!
When the East Coast got whacked by the biggest week of blizzards in a century this week (well, only the part of the East Coast that counts to the news media—D.C.), some commentators took the opportunity to crow that this was evidence that global warming is a fraud.
More! Yesterday (2/12), 49 of the 50 U.S. states had measurable snow on the ground (kudos if you can figure out which didn’t!)—up to 4-6 inches across the Deep South.
The two-part mid-Atlantic storm was so heavy that Baltimore had more snow so far this season—six feet!—than Buffalo, NY. Meanwhile, of course, the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC, struggles with trucking in enough snow for the mogul and Xtreme hills, and Utah (“Greatest Snow on Earth!”) is at 63 percent of normal snowpack, the weather moguls say, predicting another year of significant drought.
But never mind. Some media pundits used the East Coast blizzard as a way to poke the Obama administration and environmentalists over their “hysteria” about “alleged global warming.” See this clip from The Daily Show, in which Jon Stewart and friends showcase some of the climate change discussion. Many more conservative (whatever that means) politicians and media (like the Wall Street Journal) also took the storm as an opportunity to poo-poo science and political positions they dislike. See this link to “Media Matters for America” (a liberal—whatever that means—media watchdog group).
Closer to home, the Utah Legislature this week passed a formal resolution questioning whether global warming exists (and what about that Utah drought-y thingy?), leading scientists from that radical campus to the south (B-Y-U) to send a formal letter of protest and then to testify before a legislative hearing.
USU science Professor Will Popendorf writes: “Regarding the resolution, you may be aware that some faculty from BYU were involved in testimony to the legislature on this topic. . . . In addition, a group of their faculty initiated a letter response (see PDF at http://utahjwj.org/img/Legislature2.pdf). My understanding is that this letter is being supported by
faculty at the UofU.”
So, where does all that leave us? As normal humans with no particular position or expertise on this topic, how are we to respond to these kinds of strong statements from elected representatives and prominent news people? How can we make sense of these things? Certainly, we have seen the pictures of disappearing glaciers, and heard about declining stocks of fish that apparently can’t find food in warming oceans; and then there are those poor polar bears whose icebergs are melting. Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, fergoodnesssakes!, for his work on climate change, including “An Inconvenient Truth.” There’s got to be something to all that. But what about all these other people who also seem to know what they’re talking about?
How do we know what we think???
Dr. Ted
Perfesser of Confusing Things
.
Global Warming, Global Schmarming
See!? It’s SNOWING! Take that, Al Gore!!
When the East Coast got whacked by the biggest week of blizzards in a century this week (well, only the part of the East Coast that counts to the news media—D.C.), some commentators took the opportunity to crow that this was evidence that global warming is a fraud.
More! Yesterday (2/12), 49 of the 50 U.S. states had measurable snow on the ground (kudos if you can figure out which didn’t!)—up to 4-6 inches across the Deep South.The two-part mid-Atlantic storm was so heavy that Baltimore had more snow so far this season—six feet!—than Buffalo, NY. Meanwhile, of course, the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC, struggles with trucking in enough snow for the mogul and Xtreme hills, and Utah (“Greatest Snow on Earth!”) is at 63 percent of normal snowpack, the weather moguls say, predicting another year of significant drought.
But never mind. Some media pundits used the East Coast blizzard as a way to poke the Obama administration and environmentalists over their “hysteria” about “alleged global warming.” See this clip from The Daily Show, in which Jon Stewart and friends showcase some of the climate change discussion. Many more conservative (whatever that means) politicians and media (like the Wall Street Journal) also took the storm as an opportunity to poo-poo science and political positions they dislike. See this link to “Media Matters for America” (a liberal—whatever that means—media watchdog group).
Closer to home, the Utah Legislature this week passed a formal resolution questioning whether global warming exists (and what about that Utah drought-y thingy?), leading scientists from that radical campus to the south (B-Y-U) to send a formal letter of protest and then to testify before a legislative hearing.
USU science Professor Will Popendorf writes: “Regarding the resolution, you may be aware that some faculty from BYU were involved in testimony to the legislature on this topic. . . . In addition, a group of their faculty initiated a letter response (see PDF at http://utahjwj.org/img/Legislature2.pdf). My understanding is that this letter is being supported by
faculty at the UofU.”
So, where does all that leave us? As normal humans with no particular position or expertise on this topic, how are we to respond to these kinds of strong statements from elected representatives and prominent news people? How can we make sense of these things? Certainly, we have seen the pictures of disappearing glaciers, and heard about declining stocks of fish that apparently can’t find food in warming oceans; and then there are those poor polar bears whose icebergs are melting. Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, fergoodnesssakes!, for his work on climate change, including “An Inconvenient Truth.” There’s got to be something to all that. But what about all these other people who also seem to know what they’re talking about?How do we know what we think???
Dr. Ted
Perfesser of Confusing Things
.
Friday, February 12, 2010
How (Some) News Media Cover Same-Sex Debate
.
Covering the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Here’s an interesting post on a site called “10000 Words—Where Journalism & Technology Meet” about how some news outlets have used technology in telling the same-sex marriage story. This relates to truthiness in that media consumers are bombarded by so much information (if we choose—or have time—to pay attention to it!) that it becomes difficult for us to figure out what’s true. You can see from this example of impressive coverage how being media smart can be hard work!
El Peez
PS: And in Saturday’s Salt Lake Tribune (2/13), this conversation about the distinction between religious/church marriage and civil unions. Is this really a religious issue, or a social/civil issue? The opposition to same-sex marriage seems to come on religious grounds, but few same-sex couples seem to want church weddings—the California law that was struck down by Proposition 8 in 2008 permitted civil marriages by mayors and judges, not church weddings, which are up to individual religions.
In her story, Rosemary Waters writes: “When a bride and groom exchange vows in a cathedral, chapel or temple, they receive a marriage license, blessed simultaneously by their clergy and their state.
.
.
Covering the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Here’s an interesting post on a site called “10000 Words—Where Journalism & Technology Meet” about how some news outlets have used technology in telling the same-sex marriage story. This relates to truthiness in that media consumers are bombarded by so much information (if we choose—or have time—to pay attention to it!) that it becomes difficult for us to figure out what’s true. You can see from this example of impressive coverage how being media smart can be hard work!
El Peez
PS: And in Saturday’s Salt Lake Tribune (2/13), this conversation about the distinction between religious/church marriage and civil unions. Is this really a religious issue, or a social/civil issue? The opposition to same-sex marriage seems to come on religious grounds, but few same-sex couples seem to want church weddings—the California law that was struck down by Proposition 8 in 2008 permitted civil marriages by mayors and judges, not church weddings, which are up to individual religions.
In her story, Rosemary Waters writes: “When a bride and groom exchange vows in a cathedral, chapel or temple, they receive a marriage license, blessed simultaneously by their clergy and their state. But why? Other religious ceremonies aren't wedded to civil ones. The county clerk doesn't issue a baptism license. A priest doesn't deliver a funeral eulogy and then sign the death certificate.”
For couples—gay or straight—the central issues of marriage may be as much about matters like inheritance, health care and insurance as anything else. Oh, and love and commitment, too, of course. (Happy Valentine’s Day—to all loving couples!)
.
.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Examples of Truthiness at Work
.
Dear Smarties:
I have noted a couple of examples of the ramifications of the “truthiness” syndrome in the press this weekend.
Yesterday (2/6), the Herald-Journal ran this wonderful letter from a guy in Smithfield named Russ Larsen, titled “Gore & Co. distorting facts,” about what he calls “all the recent ‘hoopla’ about global warming.” Click here for the full letter. Note the “facts” Mr. Larsen is citing. Wherever you stand on the question of global warming and environmental change, this guy’s understand of reality is a little skewed. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, but why does he believe it?
Another example is yesterday’s appearance at the Tea Party convention in Nashville by Sarah Palin. Without asserting any facts, Palin pumps up the crowd with her anti-Obama rhetoric, which then can be reported as news on outlets including Fox, which employs her as a commentator. Again, wherever you stand on Obama, reality is being created by the echo chamber of the event, the coverage and the creation of news from the event and the coverage. This morning, Chris Wallace was interviewing Palin (again, a Fox employee) on the Fox Sunday talkshow.... If you repeat something often enough, it becomes important, and maybe even “true.” (See Christian Science Monitor coverage here.)
One more example: In today’s (Sunday 2/7) Salt Lake Tribune, columnist Peg McEntee addresses climate change as a “conspiracy theory”—NOT! (And cartoonist Pat Bagley, right, also focuses on this.) This is targeted at Utah state Rep. Mike Noel of Kanab, who thinks scientists, government officials and liberals are conspiring to force global cooling on us. Last year, Noel asked USU President Stan Albrecht to discipline some USU climate researchers because they had testified before state legislative panels about climate change (they believe it). Noel said these guys are on the state payroll, and shouldn’t be allowed to promote lies. (Noel later backed down). As McEntee reports in her column, Noel and others who see global warming as a fake left-wing conspiracy (like Mr. Larsen from Smithfield, above; Gov. Gary Herbert also thinks humans have nothing to do with climate change) think this is an effort at world population control. Bills are pending before the Utah Legislature to shut down the federal Environmental Protection Agency until “a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”
So this “truthiness” stuff is complicated. How do we “know” what we think we know? We see letters like Mr. Larsen’s or columns like McEntee’s, or cartoons like Pat Bagley’s, or coverage of rhetorical entertainment like Sarah Palin’s or Glenn Beck’s or Rachel Maddow’s (or Jon Stewart’s!). Yikes! How to decide what to believe? See how important it is to be critically thinking media smarties???
Keep thinking, Smarties.
Dr. Ted
.
Dear Smarties:
I have noted a couple of examples of the ramifications of the “truthiness” syndrome in the press this weekend.
Yesterday (2/6), the Herald-Journal ran this wonderful letter from a guy in Smithfield named Russ Larsen, titled “Gore & Co. distorting facts,” about what he calls “all the recent ‘hoopla’ about global warming.” Click here for the full letter. Note the “facts” Mr. Larsen is citing. Wherever you stand on the question of global warming and environmental change, this guy’s understand of reality is a little skewed. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, but why does he believe it?
Another example is yesterday’s appearance at the Tea Party convention in Nashville by Sarah Palin. Without asserting any facts, Palin pumps up the crowd with her anti-Obama rhetoric, which then can be reported as news on outlets including Fox, which employs her as a commentator. Again, wherever you stand on Obama, reality is being created by the echo chamber of the event, the coverage and the creation of news from the event and the coverage. This morning, Chris Wallace was interviewing Palin (again, a Fox employee) on the Fox Sunday talkshow.... If you repeat something often enough, it becomes important, and maybe even “true.” (See Christian Science Monitor coverage here.)
One more example: In today’s (Sunday 2/7) Salt Lake Tribune, columnist Peg McEntee addresses climate change as a “conspiracy theory”—NOT! (And cartoonist Pat Bagley, right, also focuses on this.) This is targeted at Utah state Rep. Mike Noel of Kanab, who thinks scientists, government officials and liberals are conspiring to force global cooling on us. Last year, Noel asked USU President Stan Albrecht to discipline some USU climate researchers because they had testified before state legislative panels about climate change (they believe it). Noel said these guys are on the state payroll, and shouldn’t be allowed to promote lies. (Noel later backed down). As McEntee reports in her column, Noel and others who see global warming as a fake left-wing conspiracy (like Mr. Larsen from Smithfield, above; Gov. Gary Herbert also thinks humans have nothing to do with climate change) think this is an effort at world population control. Bills are pending before the Utah Legislature to shut down the federal Environmental Protection Agency until “a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”So this “truthiness” stuff is complicated. How do we “know” what we think we know? We see letters like Mr. Larsen’s or columns like McEntee’s, or cartoons like Pat Bagley’s, or coverage of rhetorical entertainment like Sarah Palin’s or Glenn Beck’s or Rachel Maddow’s (or Jon Stewart’s!). Yikes! How to decide what to believe? See how important it is to be critically thinking media smarties???
Keep thinking, Smarties.
Dr. Ted
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
