A Gallup poll shows half of Americans distrust “mass media news organizations to report fully, accurately and fairly”. A survey done in ten countries shows that, “over one in four people (28%) across 10 countries either strongly agrees (13%) or somewhat agrees (15%) with the statement--- in the past year I have ‘stopped using a specific media source because it lost my trust’. This is particularly the case in Brazil (44%), Egypt (40%), South Korea (39%), and the US (32%). Russians (10%) are least likely to say this, as are Germans (15%), and Indonesians (17%). Citizens of the UK (29%), India (28%), and Nigeria (27%) define the average position across the 10 countries.” “According to a ten-country opinion poll for the BBC, Reuters, and The Media Center, more people trust the media more than their governments, especially in developing countries”
According to the above survey and poll, people have begun to lose their trust to media, no matter in the developing countries or developed countries. But the survey also pointed out that, “more people trust the media than their governments, especially in developing countries”, then I would like to express my opinion in this point.
China is surely a developing country, though it has fast development these years, which therefore results into a serious of problems, such as government official corruption, media system incompletion. And these two factors have been enough to lead to people’s distrust to media and government. Though this survey didn’t cover China, but I do believer China has the same problem with those development countries.
People trust the media more than the government doesn’t mean the media in China is trustful. It is just because people have no choices. In some distance, they may think that the government even is worse than the media. Media will at least try to tell them some facts in order to attract more attention, though the facts may not be real,. But the government will never tell the truth. Officials’ so-call truth is always positive and active. Such as in Sanxi province in China, there are often some mineworkers died from the collapse of the mine hole due to the unqualified mine building. The government will never broadcast the correct death number. The officials always want to hide the truth until being discovered by some journalists who tried every way to get the first hand information. The SARS news was even hided by the government for 4 months……Experiencing too much, the Chinese people began to be suspicious of what the Chinese government published.
Though comparing to the government, the media may gain a little more trust from people, but this trust is so little that, people choose to only believe those authoritative media, or they will make the decision after comparing several reports. Their distrust to media also shows in aspect of the case that, when they are invited to receive an interview about what was happening to them, their most frequent answer is that, even if I express my idea in front of the camera, do you journalists dare to broadcast it? Even if you broadcast my interview, do you think it can help to solve this problem? Can you guarantee you won’t distort what I said?
As a journalist for two years, I understand their disappointment, worries and distrust. How can we complain them? In our department meeting, every one or two weeks, we will be informed a notice that some journalist is punished due to reporting the false news. When people hope we can broadcast the unfair matters happening to them, no matter how serious the matter is, as long as we receive an order to stop following this news, all of the journalists have to keep silent……
So, the distrust from citizens is not only the media’s fault. Of course, the media has to suffer the main responsibility. But the government, political system, and commercial market also lead to this distrust. That is also why we are so difficult to eliminate or decrease the distrust from the audiences or readers.
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut.html
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/why_people_dist.html
http://www.adrants.com/2005/09/half-of-americans-distrust-mass-media-new.php
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
BITCH!
There.
I said it.
If you are offended then you had better stop reading now, because I am not willing to restrict my speech in order to try not to offend. This would be futile in any case, since I am certain that anything I can say, no matter how seemingly inoffensive, will offend someone. Go ahead, try to think of something you can say that will not offend anyone.
So perhaps I should restrict my speech so that I will not offend what the Supreme Court refers to as a “reasonable person,” which is itself a sort of legal definition used in order to not directly address a problem. I don’t think I know what a reasonable person is, and that is what is useful about this definition, it is meaningless. I know a lot of people who watch South Park, which is at one time or another offensive to just about everyone, so I have to wonder, are these reasonable persons? The point I am trying to make is that you can’t say something that won’t offend someone, and saying something that will not offend a reasonable person means limiting what you have to say to what is meaningless.
I am willing to play the game of not using certain words around certain people, so when I am around children I will, for the sake of the parents, not say those words you are not supposed to say around children. And what a strange game that is, because the children learn these words anyway, and restricting these words gives them power. I will also restrict my speech when I am around my younger sister, because for her the most offensive thing someone can do is to take The Lords name in vain. But this is a choice she has made, based on her religious beliefs, and if she were Muslim she would hold those beliefs just as tightly, that’s the way she is. The problem with both of these examples is that because I have restricted my speech, the range of topics we can discuss fully has been seriously diminished, and even though there are probably not many subjects I can discuss in depth with the children I encounter, I can definitely communicate more clearly with children whose parents do not place these restrictions on me.
And so it goes with all people, I think. To restrict what can be said makes the already difficult task of communicating all that more difficult, if not futile. So why do I feel it is important to be able to say “Bitch?” Because under certain circumstances, that is exactly the correct word, and no combination of words will ever be a sufficient substitute. And if the word “Bitch” bothers you, then you can, as I suggested, stop reading and go on to reading something else.
I also believe that there should be no restrictions of what can be said in music. If a song is offensive, don’t buy it, and if it is on the radio, change the station. Offensive language is, if I may, real. There is no way to express certain messages in art without using what is real. And besides, what is offensive today will look tame in a couple of decades. Is anyone offended by The Sex Pistols anymore?
As for Don Imus, I don’t think his speech should be restricted either. He may have used speech that some consider offensive, but he is just another big-mouthed bully with a radio show, and an audience that likes that kind of thing, I guess.
What I personally find highly offensive are pundits and politicians talking about regime change, which is a euphemism for war, death, and general suffering for the population of the changed regime. Iraq has lived through one of our regime changes, now Iran and Syria are candidates. However offensive I find this, I would not advocate banning this speech.
Imus Fired
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml
Sharpton demands record labels ban certain words
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rap3may03,1,6177544.story?coll=la-headlines-business
William Kristol calls for regime change in Iran and Syria
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwbvs.asp?pg=2
I said it.
If you are offended then you had better stop reading now, because I am not willing to restrict my speech in order to try not to offend. This would be futile in any case, since I am certain that anything I can say, no matter how seemingly inoffensive, will offend someone. Go ahead, try to think of something you can say that will not offend anyone.
So perhaps I should restrict my speech so that I will not offend what the Supreme Court refers to as a “reasonable person,” which is itself a sort of legal definition used in order to not directly address a problem. I don’t think I know what a reasonable person is, and that is what is useful about this definition, it is meaningless. I know a lot of people who watch South Park, which is at one time or another offensive to just about everyone, so I have to wonder, are these reasonable persons? The point I am trying to make is that you can’t say something that won’t offend someone, and saying something that will not offend a reasonable person means limiting what you have to say to what is meaningless.
I am willing to play the game of not using certain words around certain people, so when I am around children I will, for the sake of the parents, not say those words you are not supposed to say around children. And what a strange game that is, because the children learn these words anyway, and restricting these words gives them power. I will also restrict my speech when I am around my younger sister, because for her the most offensive thing someone can do is to take The Lords name in vain. But this is a choice she has made, based on her religious beliefs, and if she were Muslim she would hold those beliefs just as tightly, that’s the way she is. The problem with both of these examples is that because I have restricted my speech, the range of topics we can discuss fully has been seriously diminished, and even though there are probably not many subjects I can discuss in depth with the children I encounter, I can definitely communicate more clearly with children whose parents do not place these restrictions on me.
And so it goes with all people, I think. To restrict what can be said makes the already difficult task of communicating all that more difficult, if not futile. So why do I feel it is important to be able to say “Bitch?” Because under certain circumstances, that is exactly the correct word, and no combination of words will ever be a sufficient substitute. And if the word “Bitch” bothers you, then you can, as I suggested, stop reading and go on to reading something else.
I also believe that there should be no restrictions of what can be said in music. If a song is offensive, don’t buy it, and if it is on the radio, change the station. Offensive language is, if I may, real. There is no way to express certain messages in art without using what is real. And besides, what is offensive today will look tame in a couple of decades. Is anyone offended by The Sex Pistols anymore?
As for Don Imus, I don’t think his speech should be restricted either. He may have used speech that some consider offensive, but he is just another big-mouthed bully with a radio show, and an audience that likes that kind of thing, I guess.
What I personally find highly offensive are pundits and politicians talking about regime change, which is a euphemism for war, death, and general suffering for the population of the changed regime. Iraq has lived through one of our regime changes, now Iran and Syria are candidates. However offensive I find this, I would not advocate banning this speech.
Imus Fired
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml
Sharpton demands record labels ban certain words
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rap3may03,1,6177544.story?coll=la-headlines-business
William Kristol calls for regime change in Iran and Syria
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwbvs.asp?pg=2
Monday, May 7, 2007
Oh no, the planet's getting warmer, thank god for air conditioning!
By: N. Long
For the first time in the year 2007, I find myself turning on the air conditioner in my room. It's Sunday, May 6th, and the temperature in my hometown of Millbrae has reached a whooping 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Ok, so it's not that hot, but the crappy insulation in my room, combined with the mid-afternoon sun, made me feel like I was in a sauna. So I cranked up the AC, causing whatever damage to the environment that air conditioners cause, sat back, and contemplated the idea that Al Gore might be right about global warming.
On March 13, a New York Times article, quoting from many global warming skeptics, attacked Al Gore's representation of global warming. A few days latter, Fox News correspondents, quoting the Times article, continued the assault on Gore. The specific nature of the attack is not important, so much as the attack itself. When discussing the issue of global warming, the media has consistently attempted to provide both sides of the story. As responsible journalist, anchors, reporters, and commentators alike have attempted to create "balance" in their reporting. However, in their enthusiasm to be fair and accurate, have journalist actually created a bias?
Jules and Maxwell Boykoff of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog organization, argue that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming, telling both sides of the story can actually be "informational bias." While the large majority of environmental scientist along with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree that "global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately," a "small group of global warming skeptics" have their views greatly amplified by the news media. Given the large number of scientist and officials that agree on the effects of global warming, it might be upsetting for them to see a small group get just as much airtime. Nevertheless, so long as that small group exists, their side of the story must be told.
The United States is a democracy. And in a democracy, the vote of the majority rules. However, both sides of a story must be heard. Even if one side is seemingly illegitimate and without merit, it has a right to speak. Then, and only then, can a vote take place. It is true that the majority of scientist believe that the Earth's temperature is rising. All but one peer-reviewed scholarly publication on the subject of global warming has supported this belief. However, so long as there is one publication on the other side, there exists a debate. And as responsible journalist, anchors, reporters and commentators have a duty to tell both sides of the story.
Today was the first truly hot day of the year in Millbrae, but as the AC started to kick in, and I felt my body cool, I thought to myself, why should I care? Which brings up another problem with the global warming agenda. According to the leading global warming scientists, by the year 2100, the temperature of the Earth "could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees," which could cause sea levels to "rise by as much as 35 inches." First of all, by the year 2100, I'll dead. I don't plan on having children, so I don't really care what happens that far into the future. Secondly, when scientists use the phrase "by as much as," it usually means that they are talking worst-case scenario. Remember the millennium bug? Scientists were spot on about that one. The bottom line for me, and probably a few other people as well, is this. I will work to stop global warming if it benefits me, or has no effect on me. In 2003, I was still an undergraduate and just beginning in real estate. I needed a new care and didn't have much money. I looked into buying a Toyota Prius, thinking I could help the environment and save money on gasoline at the same time. Turns out, the Prius would have cost several thousand more than the Toyota Corolla, which I ended up buying. The average savings on gasoline would almost certainly never nullify the difference in initial price. The features on the two cars were virtually the same, so basically, I would have to pay to help the environment. Not gonna happen. Al Gore can preach all he wants, but so long as it is more cost effective to buy the Corolla, most people are going to but the Corolla. Don't believe me? Check the stats. As for the temperature in my room, all I can say is, thank god for air conditioning.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200703260011
http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_media_warm.htm
For the first time in the year 2007, I find myself turning on the air conditioner in my room. It's Sunday, May 6th, and the temperature in my hometown of Millbrae has reached a whooping 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Ok, so it's not that hot, but the crappy insulation in my room, combined with the mid-afternoon sun, made me feel like I was in a sauna. So I cranked up the AC, causing whatever damage to the environment that air conditioners cause, sat back, and contemplated the idea that Al Gore might be right about global warming.
On March 13, a New York Times article, quoting from many global warming skeptics, attacked Al Gore's representation of global warming. A few days latter, Fox News correspondents, quoting the Times article, continued the assault on Gore. The specific nature of the attack is not important, so much as the attack itself. When discussing the issue of global warming, the media has consistently attempted to provide both sides of the story. As responsible journalist, anchors, reporters, and commentators alike have attempted to create "balance" in their reporting. However, in their enthusiasm to be fair and accurate, have journalist actually created a bias?
Jules and Maxwell Boykoff of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog organization, argue that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming, telling both sides of the story can actually be "informational bias." While the large majority of environmental scientist along with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree that "global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately," a "small group of global warming skeptics" have their views greatly amplified by the news media. Given the large number of scientist and officials that agree on the effects of global warming, it might be upsetting for them to see a small group get just as much airtime. Nevertheless, so long as that small group exists, their side of the story must be told.
The United States is a democracy. And in a democracy, the vote of the majority rules. However, both sides of a story must be heard. Even if one side is seemingly illegitimate and without merit, it has a right to speak. Then, and only then, can a vote take place. It is true that the majority of scientist believe that the Earth's temperature is rising. All but one peer-reviewed scholarly publication on the subject of global warming has supported this belief. However, so long as there is one publication on the other side, there exists a debate. And as responsible journalist, anchors, reporters and commentators have a duty to tell both sides of the story.
Today was the first truly hot day of the year in Millbrae, but as the AC started to kick in, and I felt my body cool, I thought to myself, why should I care? Which brings up another problem with the global warming agenda. According to the leading global warming scientists, by the year 2100, the temperature of the Earth "could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees," which could cause sea levels to "rise by as much as 35 inches." First of all, by the year 2100, I'll dead. I don't plan on having children, so I don't really care what happens that far into the future. Secondly, when scientists use the phrase "by as much as," it usually means that they are talking worst-case scenario. Remember the millennium bug? Scientists were spot on about that one. The bottom line for me, and probably a few other people as well, is this. I will work to stop global warming if it benefits me, or has no effect on me. In 2003, I was still an undergraduate and just beginning in real estate. I needed a new care and didn't have much money. I looked into buying a Toyota Prius, thinking I could help the environment and save money on gasoline at the same time. Turns out, the Prius would have cost several thousand more than the Toyota Corolla, which I ended up buying. The average savings on gasoline would almost certainly never nullify the difference in initial price. The features on the two cars were virtually the same, so basically, I would have to pay to help the environment. Not gonna happen. Al Gore can preach all he wants, but so long as it is more cost effective to buy the Corolla, most people are going to but the Corolla. Don't believe me? Check the stats. As for the temperature in my room, all I can say is, thank god for air conditioning.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200703260011
http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_media_warm.htm
Media has become a killer?
Actually, this is a tragic story. But now it has become a piece of entertainment news spreaded among China, served as an tool for media to attract more audiences and a ridiculous matter for people to talk about, though death and harm has been caused. Until now, the media still enjoy following the development of this matter, never realizing they have become a killer, in some distance.
This story began from13 years ago. One day, a 16 year-old girl met the famous Hongkong movie star Andy Lau in her dream, then she could not help being stuck on him and swore to met him in real life. In order to meet her dream, she stopped her study and stayed at home, only watching Andy Lau’s music video and listening his songs all day long. However, her crazy decision gained strong support from her parents, who spoiled their only child so much. Though his father Mr Yang is only a teacher in a middle school, earning little money from his job. He borrowed the usury and even sold his house to support his daughter’s trip to Hongkong to meet Andy Lao. Originally, this is only a story about a parent over-spoiling their daughter and choosing an unreasonable way. But since the media involved and broadcasted this matter, it became a tragedy step by step。
In March 2006, Lanzhou Morning Newspaper firstly discovered and published Yang’s story. Then CCTV and other media all began to broadcast Yang’s experiences. In order to convince Mr Yang to cooperate with them in the interview, the journalists even promised him that, they would construct the consensus pressure to force Anty Lau to meet Yang. Because the encouragement and the promise of the media, Yang’s family was recharged of hope and strength. They naively believe that, the media will help them to meet their dream.
Less then half a week, all the Chinese know that there is a crazy fan called Yang Lijuan. However, Audy Lau seemed immune of such media consensus. He declared that, he would not meet Yang because he thought her behavior is improper. Andy Lau’s response made Yang’s family fall into disappointment. Later, some media found that this news has no more value in use then giving up pursing it. However, Yang’s father insisted that, their passion would move Andy Lau one day and he still remembered what the journalists said--- the consensus would make Andy Lau compromised.
In March 2007, Yang’s family borrowed the usury and began the trip to Hongkong again, holding the dream that they may meet Andy Lau in his birthday party held by fans’ party. This time, Andy Lau did have met Yang and took a picture with her. But Yang was not satisfied. She required Andy Lau to give her at lease half an hour to explain that she is not like what people said—crazy, spoiled and unreasonable. However, Audy Lau refused Yang’s request again and drove away. Yang’s father tried to stop the car, but failed. .
One day later, Yang’s father jumped into the sea, only leaving a letter, in which he scolded Andy Lau for being cold-blooded and impolite to them, requiring Audy Lau should meet his daughter in order to meet his last dream. Yang’s death caused the media’s attention again. This time, they not only printed Yang’s story in the first page, but also assigned the journalists to be with Yang’s family all day long, reporting what they did, what they thought. The media even provided money and place for Yang and her mother to stay in Hongkong, continuing the dream of meeting Andy Lau.
Yang suddenly became a star, surrounded with all the journalists from everywhere, though she has lost her father. She didn’t need to worry about the money, because there must be some media who will support her. She began to be used to deal with and utilize the media. And the media, they also enjoyed following Yang, to see how she will tangle with Andy Lau, how she will realize her dream. However, in most of the reports about Yang, media only mentioned her as a crazy fan, who has psychology problem. They interviewed Yang’s neighbors, teachers, to know more about Yang’s fanatical behavior. They ascribed this tragedy to Yang’s parents’ dotage. But no media is really target at helping Yang, waking her up. Most of the journalists wish she can conduct more crazy behavior, thus they have more news. They supported Yang to find Andy Lau, though they knew that it would only make Yang involve into a deeper pit.
Now, this tragedy seems have become a farce. Yang still repeats her dream in front of the media again and again. Media still reports how Yang are striving for meeting Andy Lao. Yang’s sadness for her father’s death seems to only last for a short time. Now she is more interested in staying in Hongkong, waiting for meeting her idol. But Andy Lau has decisively declared that, he won’t see Yang again.
In my point of view, the media has been a killer or an accomplice no matter in Yang’s father’s death or Yang’s fanatical behavior being conducted now. If media did not promise and mislead Yang’s father in the beginning that, the consensus can surely help Yang to meet her dream, if their reports did not focus on Yang’s fantastic story, but target on how to lure Yang and her parents to face the reality, to have a normal life, or to cure her psychology problem if she has, if after Yang’s father’s suicide, the media did not incite Yang to go on her dream, Yang’s father might not believe that more people pay attention to this matter, more possibly they can see Andy Lau, and he might not kill himself to lure more attention. Yang and her mother also won’t stay in Hongkong to pursue her so-call dream in life, forgetting that her father took his own life only for meeting her dream as well. But life has no take- two. Tragedy and harm has been arosed.
I don’t know when it is the end of the story. But when media scold that it is the society’s fault or enjoy receiving high attention to this matter, seldom of them will reflect on what they have done. From the beginning to now, the media are the real director and producer of this tragedy or even this farce. Yang is only a tool or a puppet of this tragedy. Yang’s father is also a victim of this matter. The winner is the media. Of course, the media itself won’t admit that. But if this goes on and on, if another tragedy will be caused? I don’t know and I dare not to think about.
http://www.danwei.org/internet/andy_lau_fans_father_kills_him.php
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20070416_1.htm
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-18/54275.html
Saturday, May 5, 2007
#5. "Sorry" - Virginia Tech.
As the news of Virginia Tech came into the public sphere there were calls for restraint in reporting (1: 2). Some called for avoiding, "racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason" (1). Others decided to avoid completely using the murderer's name (2) to avoid giving him any publicity. Earl Maucker of The South Florida Sun - Sentinel said that the news has to be, "evaluated on its merit and its level of public interest" (7) and therefore, this story was newsworthy. The story took on the issue of gun control, (3) and the topic of sensationalism and repitition was also discussed (4). The subject of the coverage having the possible effect of encouraging copycats was discussed (8). And the issue of, "the pursuit of the 'facts' has forced the human aspects of the tragedy to the back seat," was taken on in the CJR Daily (6).
In the media classes I attended since the massacre, the main question asked was, "Should the media have aired the murderer's video and photographs?" Paul Mc Leary wrote on the CJR Daily that, "we've been reduced to squabbling over whether or not to show images of the killer" (5). If the material was not aired, he says, the media would have been criticized for too little and instead they are being criticized for too much (5). In comparing to the 9/11 coverage, Mc Leary says that the coverage of the 9/11 footage may have had a cathartic value (5). The implication is that the coverage of the murderers footage may also have a cathartic value.
I believe that all answers to the question are valid. Any reasonable human being can see that there are many answers to (any) question depending on who is being asked the question. So, in an attempt to grasp some understanding of the complexity of issues involved in the media coverage of Virginia Tech I will try to answer the question from 6 different perspectives: Murderer, Yours Truly, Network/Producer, Family of Victims, Family of Murderer and
Murderer-from-beyond-the-grave.
The question is, "Should the media have aired the murderer's video and photographs?"
1. Murderer (on April 16th, 07): "Yes, absolutely. I want to get my message out. People need to
know what I've been through."
2. Yours Truly: "The video and photographs should have been aired in the late evening and with warnings of its airing. Parents should have had the opportunity to keep their children from seeing this footage and people should have had a choice to not view it. Victims families
may have chosen to not view it. The constant repitition of the footage was not at all
necessary. Periodical updates in the late evening would suffice for ongoing coverage."
3. Producer/Network: "Yes, absolutely. We had to show this news-worthy footage to the
public. If we didn't, other networks would have and we would have lost ratings. The
footage was sensational and sensation sells."
4. Family of Victims: "The footage was repeated over and over again and this became painful.
However, we did want to see who this murderer was but less would have satisfied that
purpose. We could have viewed it in private. He doesn't deserve the publicity that he
seeked."
5. Family of Murderer: "I wish it would go away. I wish he had not produced the media footage. If it helps the families of the victims then it's o.k. I cannot believe what has happened. I just wish I could turn back the clock and stop it all from happening."
6. Murderer-from-beyond-the-grave: "I am sorry. I can't believe what I did. If I could take
it all back, I would. I am so sorry. I feel that my words are so empty because they cannot
change what I have done. I feel powerless. All I can say is I am sorry. Please believe me.
I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.
(1). http://www.aaja.org/news/aajanews/2007_04_16_01/
(2). http://www.dailycollegian.com
(3). http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/media_coverage_of_virginia_tec.php
(4). http://media.www.roundupnews.com/media/storage/paper474/news/2007/04/26/Opinion/S...
(5). http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/nbcs_damned_if_it_does_and_dam.php
(6). http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/post_21.php
(7). http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?dex=1&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=P...
(8). http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/04/19/virginia-tech-and-social-media-some-questions-for-ne...
In the media classes I attended since the massacre, the main question asked was, "Should the media have aired the murderer's video and photographs?" Paul Mc Leary wrote on the CJR Daily that, "we've been reduced to squabbling over whether or not to show images of the killer" (5). If the material was not aired, he says, the media would have been criticized for too little and instead they are being criticized for too much (5). In comparing to the 9/11 coverage, Mc Leary says that the coverage of the 9/11 footage may have had a cathartic value (5). The implication is that the coverage of the murderers footage may also have a cathartic value.
I believe that all answers to the question are valid. Any reasonable human being can see that there are many answers to (any) question depending on who is being asked the question. So, in an attempt to grasp some understanding of the complexity of issues involved in the media coverage of Virginia Tech I will try to answer the question from 6 different perspectives: Murderer, Yours Truly, Network/Producer, Family of Victims, Family of Murderer and
Murderer-from-beyond-the-grave.
The question is, "Should the media have aired the murderer's video and photographs?"
1. Murderer (on April 16th, 07): "Yes, absolutely. I want to get my message out. People need to
know what I've been through."
2. Yours Truly: "The video and photographs should have been aired in the late evening and with warnings of its airing. Parents should have had the opportunity to keep their children from seeing this footage and people should have had a choice to not view it. Victims families
may have chosen to not view it. The constant repitition of the footage was not at all
necessary. Periodical updates in the late evening would suffice for ongoing coverage."
3. Producer/Network: "Yes, absolutely. We had to show this news-worthy footage to the
public. If we didn't, other networks would have and we would have lost ratings. The
footage was sensational and sensation sells."
4. Family of Victims: "The footage was repeated over and over again and this became painful.
However, we did want to see who this murderer was but less would have satisfied that
purpose. We could have viewed it in private. He doesn't deserve the publicity that he
seeked."
5. Family of Murderer: "I wish it would go away. I wish he had not produced the media footage. If it helps the families of the victims then it's o.k. I cannot believe what has happened. I just wish I could turn back the clock and stop it all from happening."
6. Murderer-from-beyond-the-grave: "I am sorry. I can't believe what I did. If I could take
it all back, I would. I am so sorry. I feel that my words are so empty because they cannot
change what I have done. I feel powerless. All I can say is I am sorry. Please believe me.
I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.
(1). http://www.aaja.org/news/aajanews/2007_04_16_01/
(2). http://www.dailycollegian.com
(3). http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/media_coverage_of_virginia_tec.php
(4). http://media.www.roundupnews.com/media/storage/paper474/news/2007/04/26/Opinion/S...
(5). http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/nbcs_damned_if_it_does_and_dam.php
(6). http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/post_21.php
(7). http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?dex=1&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=P...
(8). http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/04/19/virginia-tech-and-social-media-some-questions-for-ne...
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
If you don't know about this number, go check it out.
If you don't know about this number, go check it out.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
I love the press.
Being a news junkie has its pitfalls, sure, but it also means that I’m often the first to notice the hypocrisies of the press. I mostly rely on SFGate, the San Francisco Chronicle’s website for my news because it tends to be a nice blend of national and international news stories, provided by the ever diligent Associated Press news feed and local stories and columnists writing about issues that affect my life in a more direct way. Although the recent tanker truck explosion doesn’t affect me too much, except for affecting traffic where I live, I’ve been following the story pretty closely.
On Monday, the day after the accident, the Chronicle posted a story about the driver’s escape from the burning truck and his journey to the hospital. A little bit of background on the driver was given, and buried deep within the article was some information about his church ties. Apparently, the man volunteers for a Christian ministry. And as for his survival, "If he walked away, it's only because the Lord was with him," says his friend, the Reverend. All of this is at the very end of an article that, while on the SFGate page, was far from featured.
Today’s homepage tells a different story. The featured article – front page news, if you will – is a photo of the man with headlines blaring about his criminal past. As it turns out, the gentleman has a bit of a history:
“James Mosqueda's criminal record in Sacramento County includes a 1993 conviction for misdemeanor possession of a syringe, for which he was sentenced to 60 days; a 1994 conviction for felony possession of stolen property that resulted in a 180-day sentence; and the 1996 conviction for felony heroin possession, said Lana Wyant, a Sacramento County prosecutor and spokeswoman.”
Apparently, he was legally cleared to get a commercial drivers’ license and even to transport hazardous materials. It even sounds like the guy’s reformed, what with helping others struggling with addiction. Nonetheless, the talking heads have already started screaming about changing the laws. Where were they when the man was just a Christian volunteer? Before his history came out, nobody seemed to care. And really, changing the laws won’t prevent this sort of accident from happening again: even the most rigorously licensed drivers speed sometimes. Even though the man’s convictions are not relevant to this case – his licensing was completely lawful, as soon as it made front page news, the reactions began.
But if this doesn’t affect you, don’t panic. World news has not been pre-empted for this. For example, Anna Nicole Smith was in the news yesterday; apparently she made some film that’s now being released. This was important enough for CNN to have a featured article about it. Surprisingly the film was not produced by a Time Warner subsidiary. That’s yesterday’s news, you say? Don’t fret, the drama over her baby and babydaddy is prominently featured on all of today’s newsfeeds.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGBEPI1371.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/01/MNGQUPIKI01.DTL
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/23/film.annanicole.lastrole.ap/index.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/entertainment/e100933D74.DTL
On Monday, the day after the accident, the Chronicle posted a story about the driver’s escape from the burning truck and his journey to the hospital. A little bit of background on the driver was given, and buried deep within the article was some information about his church ties. Apparently, the man volunteers for a Christian ministry. And as for his survival, "If he walked away, it's only because the Lord was with him," says his friend, the Reverend. All of this is at the very end of an article that, while on the SFGate page, was far from featured.
Today’s homepage tells a different story. The featured article – front page news, if you will – is a photo of the man with headlines blaring about his criminal past. As it turns out, the gentleman has a bit of a history:
“James Mosqueda's criminal record in Sacramento County includes a 1993 conviction for misdemeanor possession of a syringe, for which he was sentenced to 60 days; a 1994 conviction for felony possession of stolen property that resulted in a 180-day sentence; and the 1996 conviction for felony heroin possession, said Lana Wyant, a Sacramento County prosecutor and spokeswoman.”
Apparently, he was legally cleared to get a commercial drivers’ license and even to transport hazardous materials. It even sounds like the guy’s reformed, what with helping others struggling with addiction. Nonetheless, the talking heads have already started screaming about changing the laws. Where were they when the man was just a Christian volunteer? Before his history came out, nobody seemed to care. And really, changing the laws won’t prevent this sort of accident from happening again: even the most rigorously licensed drivers speed sometimes. Even though the man’s convictions are not relevant to this case – his licensing was completely lawful, as soon as it made front page news, the reactions began.
But if this doesn’t affect you, don’t panic. World news has not been pre-empted for this. For example, Anna Nicole Smith was in the news yesterday; apparently she made some film that’s now being released. This was important enough for CNN to have a featured article about it. Surprisingly the film was not produced by a Time Warner subsidiary. That’s yesterday’s news, you say? Don’t fret, the drama over her baby and babydaddy is prominently featured on all of today’s newsfeeds.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGBEPI1371.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/01/MNGQUPIKI01.DTL
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/23/film.annanicole.lastrole.ap/index.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/entertainment/e100933D74.DTL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
