Major News Broadcasters vs. The Daily Show

I am guessing you can think of the two words coming out of everyone’s mouth in the past two weeks: SWINE FLU. Yes, this vicious and vastly spreading disease is rampaging across the entire world. Well, that is what you would take from any news broadcast that you might have watched. CNN, ABC, NBC, and FOX are all cashing in on this headline that they know people will turn on the news to hear about. However, the headlines are deceiving and unnecessarily frightening and overextending the intensity of this sickness. It has already been scientifically decided that the H1N1 virus is simply a “garden variety form of influenza” (Patti) and as we discussed in class, influenza already results in about 35,000 deaths every year. Swine flu has just become a buzz word that the news is using to make people obsess over it, and of course tune in to hear the most recent news.

The major news broadcasters must be running out of subjects to talk about since the Swine Flu, or H1N1 virus as this seems to be coming out of every broadcast journalist’s mouth. It is apparent that commercial bias is at play here. “The news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit” (Rhetorica). The news must broadcast and emphasis whatever is going to draw in the largest audience and the highest ratings. I used April 27 as my study date to look at news reports since it seems in the middle of all of the coverage. On CNN’s health segment “Paging Dr. Gupta” immediately starts with saying that the swine flu is being referred to as an “emergency of international concern which is how they begin to describe pandemics.” A number of possible cases are represented on a map before talking about the number of possible deaths. Dr. Gupta interviews another doctor who is a specialist in infectious diseases who he asks questions for more information about the possible cases. She basically gives the same advice that you would give to prevent any other type of influenza, which does not really suggest that this is any different than the normal flu. All of this is presented in a strictly informational way that has the effect that its segment name’s connotation — ‘Swine Flu Fears.’ FOX News’ own segment called ‘Swine Flu Fears’ starts by saying this is a health emergency and speaking in a grave voice about the 20 possible cases that had arose. They also interview a doctor who while saying we need to remain calm has a news banner underneath reading “Fears of swine flu spread: Over 100 dead, 1,614 sickened in Mexico” which is not necessarily what you want to read while trying to calm down about the virus. The doctor brings up how face masks “spread fear” after just saying that there could be a secondary wave of the virus. Everything just sounds pretty scary and foreboding that while it is a mild case now, that may change.

The Daily Show has a much different way of reporting this news event and it certainly is much more entertaining. On his April 27 show he juxtaposes new clips talking about the ‘widespread pandemic’ and ‘health emergency’ with ridiculing jokes to coincide with a graphic that said “Snoutbreak ’09.” Since no one seems to be focusing at all on the fact that Obama’s first 100 days had passed as President, he jokes that this will be our last 100 days because of this ‘deadly’ virus. He then goes on to say the swine flu ranks last on things that can kill you in Mexico after ‘Piñata Accident,’ completely undermining how the news media is blowing this virus up as an emergency. The fact that there are only a few possible cases in countries they are making it sound like a widespread issue which Stewart responds by saying “we are in for a good old fashioned scare off.” Every aspect of this supposedly serious issue is made fun of, but it is a good dose of realism so that some people can take a step back and really think about what news stations are saying. He contextualizes everything and uses clips to defend his thoughts, making his point valid even though it’s all for the sake of a good laugh. While his show seems like a better representation of the truth, not the fanaticized version that the news suggests, it is unfair to compare Stewart’s form of journalism to major networks. “Stewart and his fake correspondents are freed from the media's preoccupation with balance, the fixation with fairness. They have no obligation to deliver the day's most important news, if that news is too depressing, too complicated or too boring. Their sole allegiance is to comedy” (Smolkin). While his show does present the news in a factual way it should not be taken more seriously than a comedic take on the situation. This does in some ways undermine the fact that this virus is killing people and spreading which should be known so that people can take certain precautions, however I think it helps people stay more levelheaded about the realities of this flu being alike the normal kind that goes around every winter.

The efforts of these news stations must be paying off because you can see references to the swine flu everywhere. UMBC has plastered directions about washing hands and covering your mouth when you cough at a very strange time of the year to be warning people of catching a cold and all you need to do is look at the myUMBC headlines feed to see that the most ‘pawpular’ articles are all dealing with the virus. It’s also pleasant to see that people are taking a more lighthearted approach like Jon Stewart to this incident, such as the owner of this face mask.

Articles:
“Media/Political Bias” by Rhetorica
“What the Mainstream Media can Learn From John Stewart” by Rachel Smolkin
“Swine Flu Strain Called ‘Garden Variety’ Form Of Influenza” by John Patti

Videos:
CNN
FOX News
The Daily Show

"The Medium is the Message"

Marshall McLuhan was one of the first theorists in the beginning of televison who analyzed how media is received by its audience. However, he made an interesting conclusion that maybe it is not the content of the media itself that carries the meaning, but rather the medium itself. The medium that presents the content is actually an excellent way to tune into the people who are viewing it. He compacts his theories into a simple phrase: “The Medium is the Message.” This phrase may seem confusing to understand at first because of its simplicity and lack of context, but upon further analysis makes so much sense.

To clarify first, McLuhan describes any medium as “any extension of ourselves” that allows a person to accomplish something that their body alone could not do (Federman). This loose definition makes basically anything a medium of some form. Any object could possibly convey some message through the context that it exists within. For instance, stainless steel water bottles are just a drinking receptacle on one hand, but if you look further there are many meanings expressed by this object. These water bottles communicate a sustainable, more environmentally conscious image. Owners of these convey the message of a more “green,” eco-friendly individual. Most objects are seen as insignificant and commonplace, but you can definitely find a message in everything, and apply that to the person who is employing that specific medium. In “What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message” by Mark Federman he says how “Many people presume the conventional meaning for "medium" that refers to the mass-media of communications - radio, television, the press, the Internet,” but we must also take into account all of the other forms that exist.

It has become evident that different mediums have the ability to cause numerous long-standing affects. McLuhan’s stance was that of a “technological determinist who credited the electronic media with the ability to exact profound social, cultural and political influences. (Zechowski)” Technological determinism is the theory that technology affects and transforms the society that it becomes a part of. These results tend to change the way that society functions once a new medium becomes prevalent. A common example is that television and video games cause adolescent obesity. Rather than concluding that many factors in this population’s lifestyle cause them to be overweight, in focuses more on the technology involved. He calls to attention that “it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it” (Federman). People are not made overweight by what they are viewing on television, but rather the change in lifestyle when society takes part in such a sedimentary activity on a daily basis.

Technology and media can synonymously be used when referring to how they create or make visible patterns within society. Before television, people were more tied to their own communities, not really seeing the greater scope of things in a state, national, or global context. Because they were limited to only their surroundings, people were content to their own way of life, what they had always been used to and conceived as normal. Once they were exposed to radio and then even more so with television, audiences now could see many groups being represented and many different ways of life. People were able to compare their lifestyles and experiences with other and recognize the patterns of society in their own context. This gave the viewing public the opportunity to become dissatisfied with their routines. During this time period, people became more aware of the complex issues that were rampant in the United States and world. It is a technological deterministic thought that the opportunities for insight brought by the television were a root in the rebellious era of the Sixties. While Vietnam was the first war to be vehemently opposed to by the American public, it was also the first to be broadcast on television. The medium itself is what is important than the content in this case: people became more aware and connected to the world around them, not just exposed to images of war.

The affects of television as a medium can easily be seen in the Kennedy-Nixon election. Marshall McLuhan describes in “Understanding Radio” how Richard Nixon was seen as the clear candidate by listening to the radio debates, it was the visual that made a dramatic affect on the voting public. This was the first televised debate for a Presidential election, and seeing John F. Kennedy on the screen made a big difference. He was much more attractive and accessible looking than Nixon, and the public preference quickly switched to Kennedy who of course won the election. You can easily see how the medium of television can have profound effects on the viewers. The image presented by the television was more important than the actual content, in this case the debate.

While McLuhan agrees that technology affects society in a profound way, he also sees how the audience has now taken a producer role in many aspects. In a 1971 interview he talks about how the invention of the instant replay was a direct result of the consumers’ demand. The audience now has more control over seeing specific plays, and is now acting as their own referees, making calls and judgments over what they can now see repeatedly and close up. The idea of consumers as producers is easily seen by YouTube, in which anyone can easily make their own video and broadcast it to a wide audience.

Marshall McLuhan made great strides in explaining how technology and the media act as part of society. His idea of “The Medium as the Message” describes how the content is not as important as the way a medium itself impacts and relates to society. Technological determinism provides a firm basis in his theories of mediums changing its audiences, while also taking into account the dynamic changes that occur when the audience takes on the role of producer.

• Sources:
• "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?" by Mark Federman
• "Understanding Radio by Marshall McLuhan Communication in History
  
• "Marshall McLuhan" by Sharon Zechowski
  

Media Deprivation

Thursday March 19, 2009
12AM Normally at this time I would be on the internet, talking to friends until I got tired enough around 1 or 2AM to fall asleep. I usually use my phone for an alarm so I am unsure what to do, because my alarm clock is at school and I do not think I can count on my internal clock to wake me up. Instead of my normal routine spent on my lap top, I will be reading Dear Diary by Lesley Arfin, which I got for Christmas, but never have really have enough time to read at once.

1:10AM I've read about 50 pages and still can't really get to sleep. There's no one awake at my house but I'd really like to talk to someone now. I guess I will just keep reading until I pass out.

11:50AM Yeah, my internal clock sucks.

I don't know what time it is. I am at a restaurant waiting for my mom to meet me at her lunch break. This is really tormenting me right now, because I am pretty anal about knowing the time, and without my phone I don't know what it is. I feel too awkward to ask someone what time it is. What if my mom can't come but she can't get a hold of me?

2:40PM Lunch went fine, and since I have been home I've just been doing laundry and playing with my puppy. I wish the weather was nicer so that I could do something outside. I read an issue of Seventeen magazine, which I have had a subscription of for about 3 years but have been neglecting lately. I am planning on starting homework now.

3:17PM So basically all of my homework involves the internet in some capacity. That did not really take up much time and my sister keeps taunting me to watch a movie because she knows that I can't. At least she is home now because I was getting bored by myself for so long.

4:05PM My 5 year old cousin has been begging to watch cartoons in here and is getting pretty mad that I won't let him. I picked up the book again and I really am enjoying it so much.

6:38PM My friend George is having a house show at his house but I don't know what time it starts. I am afraid that I missed it but I don't really have a way to find out.

8:00PM I came during the middle of the show but it's really good, relaxing music. After a day without music this is so nice. We went to get food after and my friend was annoyed that I made him turn his radio off.

10:00PM Mark is getting a tattoo at this guy Rob's house. My two friends, Lauren and Nick, are here and we are having good conversations. I was getting a little antsy to listen to the radio or check my phone, but there is really no need when my friends are right here to talk to.

12:05AM The second that I could, I turned on my phone and there were a bunch of texts awaiting me! After I did that I got on the computer and checked all the usual sites. Within about 10 minutes on the computer I was bored.

I have recently come to my own personal conclusion that the internet is not fun anymore. A few years, or even a few months ago, I could sit on the internet for hours, completely amused—and completely wasting my time. I do not really have this pleasure anymore, and cannot stand cycling through all of the same sites over and over, waiting for one new thing to pop up. I would be lying if I said this conclusion was not impacted at all by my previously described day of media deprivation. But let me back up first.

My day of media deprivation could be described as slow, boring, insightful, challenging, easier than expected, and even pleasant. The first half of my day was so quiet, with no noise and an empty house. I just kept reading until I could not really sit still any longer. My puppy is nuts and kept me busy for some of the time, but all I really wanted was to take her for a walk. With the weather outside dreary, wet, and cold I felt confined to my house. Once people started coming home I felt a lot better, with people to talk to, although this meant that everyone around was starting to use media or at least wanting to around me. I had to avoid rooms, plug my ears, and cover my eyes to make sure I stuck to the rules of the day, really wanting a true experience. The worst part of the day was feeling so cut off when I had no way to get in touch with anyone to find out what time the house show was starting. Yeah, earlier I could not text my friends random things that had no real meaning, but this time I actually needed some information. It all worked out, but it was a weird experience. Once I was surrounded by a bunch of friends it was easy to not worry about phones or twitter or what song was coming on next. I got wrapped up in being around people in real life, which of course I am used to, but it was nice not having any media-related distractions. I had to force them to comply with my rules, but it was not bad. By the time I got to use my media, I jumped to do it, but did not really feel like I was any happier to be able to use these technologies. My texts were not anything important, there was not much on the internet that mattered, and the television shows were boring.

Media seems absolutely essential and habitual to use on a day to day basis. But this experience of being media deprived only proved that those assumptions are not true. We are just so used to these things in our lives that our main modes for connecting, entertainment, and finding out information. Danna Walker wrote a very accurate description that “Eighteen- to 20-year-olds know in their hearts that electronic media are nearly as dear to their lives as physical nourishment.” Walker wrote an article, “The Longest Day” about when her students had this very assignment. I found that a lot of what her students experienced I agreed with. It was strange to be without this media, but I, just like her students, survived the day and learned some lessons.

Of course, I am not about to cut off all technology and go live by Walden Pond, however I do feel like I want to cut back some of my media usage. My day of media deprivation reminded me how much I love to read and how nice it is to hang out with people without someone turning on the TV, taking out a laptop, or being distracted by a cell phone. My biggest realization was how much I would like to decrease my internet usage. One of my biggest motivations for this is to read more. In “The End of Literacy: Don’t Stop Reading,” Howard Gardner laments how technology has decreased reading of actual texts. This assignment helped me take his opinion to heart and try to change my ways so that I do not contribute to that.

Oral vs. Written Culture

Sitting in my dorm room I see so many different examples of media surrounding me: my friends’ instant message boxes blinking as our conversation unfolds, my suitemate’s music trailing across the dorm for me to faintly hear, the television on to catch the latest Real World episode, my toolbar shows the different programs I have running—Facebook, a friend’s blog, and the movie Blow Up that I will watch at some point. Not only is there all of that, but tons of photographs, posters, and books line the walls and shelves around me. I am bombarded not just in my room, but everywhere that I go with some form of media, just waiting to make an imprint on my mind.

Vocals, instruments, and dialogue escape from all of these digital medias attacking my ears from every direction. Colors, words, and figures are everywhere in sight for my eyes to view and digest. These noises describe speech as a form of communication, while these images describe the form of writing. With the way technology has transformed over time, communication has twisted and reshaped into a multitude of formats. Speech no longer is restricted to reciting great works in order to keep an oral tradition. It has expanded far from that to just the sound that media makes, the voices you hear on the radio and in YouTube videos. Along with changes in speech there also came many different ways to use writing as media. The written media can now be interpreted as your Facebook News Feed or your latest text message. Written communications is not just letter writing and novels, it has expanded to encompass much more than that.

Howard Gardner discusses such changes in his Washington Post article, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” He says “each new medium of communication—telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web—has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration,” giving a great description of how written media has been reinterpreted. This new “media landscape” he is speaking of is broadly defined and used in so many more ways than anyone could have ever imagined and will continue to grow in different ways. While he does not believe that the “disappearance of the material book” will ever be a reality, he does see a huge shift in the way that books are viewed and the different ways that writing can be presented.

In today’s society it is incredibly hard to tell whether speech or writing is more superior. While I feel bombarded with sounds at all times, from all things, I also cannot deny the power of written words and the many ways they have come to be expressed. I honestly believe that writing is a more powerful and domineering form of communication over sound bites that last only briefly. Writing is permanent and put in print can be passed down forever. Also, I believe reading it to be the key to intelligence. In “The Dumbing of America,” also featured in the Washington Post, Susan Jacoby provides her argument that the rise of video has led to “the end of print culture.” Along with this, she believes that it has made American less intelligent overall, only caring about the fleeting video with the sound that sticks with you at the moment, but has no real long lasting qualities. These ideas bring great importance to writing over speech. I feel that my days spent buried in books greatly increased my intelligence, and has helped me read more effectively as well as provided me so much knowledge.

However, Jacoby also discusses how America has an “arrogance about that lack of knowledge” and how society no longer values the great knowledge that written texts offer. Because of this it seems that today’s society has deemed speech far more superior than writing. Speech can be taken at face value, without most people feeling the need to research or delve deeper into what they are hearing. It is seen as much more convenient than reading, requiring little effort on the audience’s part. While decades ago American citizens went to buy maps to follow along with President Franklin Roosevelt’s radio reports, interested in following along with this written tool, as Jacoby describes, this no longer would be so. People would maybe listen in, sure, but to actually look at a physical map no longer seems useful. Why bother looking up locations on a map when you are hearing the information? More likely, people would rather see the president speak on the television, so they could focus in on their appearance and hear the voice associated with the image. And to read an article or address actually written and not spoken by the president? Leave that to the intellectuals! Society does not have the time to sit and read through such a thing when it can be presented for them to listen to, no motivation required.

Gardner and Jacoby both make the point that writing and reading are both immensely important and not to be forgotten over the elusive and easy visual media that viewers have taken precedence over. I would have to agree that our society, especially our generation prefers the visual media (obviously tied to the speech that goes along with it), and has forgotten or at least begun to ignore the power of written media. I myself, while believing in that power, still am majorly guilty of using those visuals and sounds to replace written texts.

At its most simple form, speech was definitely far more superior, but that was because it was before language was ever even written. In that sense orality was the most important, and virtually the only tool for communicating and passing along stories and histories. Back in those far off days they viewed that “all sound, and especially oral utterance, which comes from inside living organisms, [was] ‘dynamic.’” Walter Ong describes this most primitive value of sound in his essay “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media.” He goes on to talk about the present day form of speech in what he calls “secondary orality,” which he sees as the modern uses of speech in visual and other audio representations. He does not see today’s society as true appreciators of speech: “only quite elderly persons today can remember what oratory was like when it was still in living contact with its primary roots.”

Oral culture has changed in many ways that may not exactly pay homage to those “primary roots.” Nonetheless, today’s society still sees it as a huge step over written communication and media.


Sources:
"Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media" by Walter Ong in Communication in History by David Crowley and Paul Heyer

“The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” by Howard Gardner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html

“The Dumbing of America” by Susan Jacoby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Short Media Journal

When I think about the impact media has in the way that communicate I have to take a step back. Media impacts so much in my life that it seems invisible at first. At a second glance I begin to think about exactly what media constitutes. Media has completely altered our lifestyles in both positive and negative ways. We can see how technology has made communication much faster and more effective, with e-mail and phone calls making conversations happen instantly. However, the time spent in front of the computer and television competes with physical activities and face to face interaction. We have come along way from the days of communication being used for economic purposes, with media being so little as a notched stick to keep count. Now there a millions of way to communicate with others and many different types of media to do it with.

Media is my cell phone. Since I got a cell phone I have used it more and more, at first just calling my friends, and then texting. I communicate with almost everyone in my life through my phone. I text my friends, my coworkers, my siblings, and even my parents daily. I do not know what I would do without my unlimited texting plan because I send so many all of the time. Texting has changed the way I communicate because it is no longer necessary to call someone to ask them a question or talk to them about something when you do not really want to have a full length conversation. Texting is a very expedient way to send and receive short bits of information. You can easily text and not have to pay attention to a person’s voice, or create a distraction in a quiet environment. Not only texting, but just being able to call anyone, anywhere makes things so easy. Thinking about a time when you did not always have a phone on your body to be able to call people seems ridiculous.

Media is the internet. Social networking sites have become a part of my life that I do not take the time to think about anymore. I got my own Myspace when I was in ninth grade and now it just seems natural to check it every day and use it to keep in touch with old friends. Eventually I caught onto the Facebook trend as well. As with Myspace, I often use it to communicate with other people. The grape vine becomes a lot shorter when the latest relationship news is broadcasted right to your news feed. These sites make it so easy to find things out about other people which is not always a good thing when it comes to your own life. I remember not wanting to change my relationship status after my boyfriend and I broke up this past summer because of the bombardment of people wanting to know the details which I was dreading and eventually had to deal with.

While these sites and my cell phone usage have become an integral part of the way I communicate, I still prefer face to face interaction. Texting or instant messaging takes away some of the awkwardness that may accompany some conversations you would have in person so it can seem like the easier route. However, talking to someone in person is a lot more meaningful and personal to me. When people completely immerse themselves in using technology to meet and talk to other people they lose a lot of important social skills that later can affect their relationships. Using the computer to meet people online can make it awkward when you are in a situation where you must interact with people in real life. For instance, if you spent high school surrounded by an online community of friends that you felt comfortable with and was never forced to step outside of that to meet friends; you could have a very hard time when you enter college and are pushed outside of that comfort zone. Talking to people in person can be hard if you have always had a screen to guard yourself with, and you could retreat back to this safe place, missing out on a lot of interesting people and the experience of college life. I do not feel as though my reliance on communicating with technology has hindered my social skills. I do see how this reliance is time consuming and is problematic in my life in that way.

Hello!

I am a Media & Communications and Sociology double major at the moment. I am still figuring out exactly what I would like to do. At UMBC I live on the Shriver Living Learning Floor and volunteer with the Baltimore Alley Greening and Gating program. I also have been involved with Student Events Board on campus. I enjoy spending time with my friends, being outside (when it's warm), music, movies, and the occasional road trip. The media affects my life every day, from learning about things on the news to seeing commercials on television. I try to think critically about the media and learn as much as I can about the medium.