Fox Primary: Complicated, contractual

So the big question is how are news organizations going to cover candidates such as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee? these are known as the "Fox Candidates" which is posing a problem for the network because of the competitors. Steve Scully, who said that when C-Span tried to get Pailin for an interview, said he had to get Fox's permission but they ultimately said no. I think that it is crazy that candidates have contracts with each station because it doesn't allow the other side to get the truth out of each person. There are also rare times where they do get permission to go on other networks, but often times it does not have any significance. In conclusion, "While having candidates with Fox contracts may be ideal media strategy for the primaries, the GOP may suffer in the general election if its candidates avoid speaking to the mass audiences of the Big Three Networks."

Can Media Regain Public Trust?

So can media really regain public trust? Michael Schudson argues yes because it is "essential for democracy, the behavior of journalists makes them unpopular" (150). Although that he says that journalists are obsessed with facts and certain events, journalists can exaggerate or even make up rumors that are not indeed true. This is why I agree with John Hockenberry because he questions the the credibility of journalists in the corporate environment. The pressure of corporate owners makes it difficult to broadcast a complete and worthy story. For example, in the Michael Jackson case there were many things that were speculated that were not true about what happened. This can cause the public to distrust the media because they are not telling the facts, but rather what they feel is true. In conclusion, a quotation from John Hockenberry sums up the arguement in that "Technology, as it has done through the ages, is freeing communication, and this is good news for the news. A little empathy couldn't hurt" (171). What he is trying to say is that technology is making the news better but people should not take advantage of this.

Upcoming Election

In the upcoming California election it comes down to two people, Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, Jerry Brown is representing the democrat party as Meg Whitman is the republican. Nonetheless, I went to each one of these candidates websites to learn more about what they stand for and how they are different from one another. Jerry Brown said that "I have lived in California all my life, as did my parents. And like them, I have devoted a large part of my life to public service. I care deeply about California. I know its history and its governing structure" (JerryBrown.org). Jerry Brown talks about the structure of California and how he wants to lower taxes and open up new jobs for people. Moreover, on his site it says that "under Jerry Brown Californians saw their tax burden reduced by more than $16 Billion. He indexed the personal income tax, eliminated the business inventory tax and offered energy tax credits, as well as other tax-saving measures" (JerryBrown.org).

On the flipside, Meg Whitman who is the owner of Ebay, plans in "restoring the state’s economic health by creating jobs, making government more efficient, and fixing the state’s public education system" (MegWhitman.org). So, there is more of a sense of bettering the education in Whitman's perspective it looks like rather than Browns. No matter who is elected, one of them needs to get California out of debt fast.

Both candidates are against Proposition 19, which is to legalize marijuana. On the ballot for November 2, 2010, this gives Californians a chance to vote for something that could get California out of debt. Legalizing marijuana I think will bring California out of debt because of how much they will tax it. I know a lot of people are against it but I think that if they legalize it for a year or two, it could help us out financially.

Will Evolving Forms Of Journalism Be An Improvement?

Yes, indeed they will be. With the constant improvement of futuristic technology and people being more intellectually educated, society will grow which is just a few of the improvements that are positive for the media. Nowadays people often have short attention spans so they most likely are not going to read the paper. This in turn will cause newspapers to slowly diminish within this lifetime and everything else will be digital. Furthermore, as time goes on people will begin to adapt to these technological changes so that they will be caught up with the media probably clearer than HD today! David Simon, who is a Senate Committee on Commerce argues no. His main reason for arguing no is because of the internet. He believes that because anyone can access it, unprofessional people will make the news more faulty. Even though there are people out in the world that do indeed do this, I still think that educated people will ignore those fallacies on the internet and choose the appropriate source.

Are Harry Potter Books Really That Bad?

Harry Potter has been controversial for quite some time now due to its portrayal of witchcraft to young children. Rob Boston, who is extremely against the Harry Potter books because of witchcraft, believes in censorship and among other things as well. Although the books do have content that might be disturbing for some individuals, in reality it is all fiction and make believe. Furthermore, Lana A. Whited does not think that they are harmful for children to read about because she thinks that the books are positive role models for children and encourage reading and learning about new things. And why wouldn't they be? Not only do Harry Potter books present those aspects about learning, but every book! If it weren't for books there wouldn't be a spread of ideas or knowledge! There's that saying, "Read to acheive", and I really agree with those words because it's true. If kids aren't reading, they are not acheiving. So, in turn, having kids read something that is appealing and entertaining to them is a great start!

All in all, books and movies are mainly written for entertaining people, not offending or trying to manipulate people to believe a certain way. That option is completely independent depending on that individual and what he or she wants to do with their lives. People who argue against the Harry Potter books pretty much put down the first amendment and are clearly not fans of creativity. I'm no Harry Potter fan, but I respect and applaud the person who wrote the books. Without freedom of speech and people being independently open minded, the world would be a boring and less fun place!

Unit 1, Issue 1

After reading Unit 1, Issue 1 on how American Values are shaped by Mass Media it was interesting to see the different approaches that each person had to offer. Schiller argues that the ideological core of media messages remain the same and electronic media is negatively influencing our society. Carey on the other hand, says that reality is produced through communication. I agree with Carey because humans have created realities through certain values, and morals that they choose to stand by or live by. Also, I agree with Schiller's idea that money is the biggest influence on our economy. He also says that system is at risk because of this because of extortion and exploitation, meaning that anyone will do anything for money. Therefore, the values and morals of people would begin to diminish over time and the economy would be an unsafe place.

We Made It

Bloggin' all day and makin' beats all night, that's the life I live and I live it all the time.