Lets Talk T.V.!

This week for my Mass Media and Society class I am going to analyze an episode or entire season of a television show and discuss how that show portrays a particular group of people and weather or not that view is good or bad in helping eliminate stereotypes. For this assignment I have chosen to analyze an episode of the early 90’s sitcom, “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.” Before beginning my analysis I would like to say that this blog post is strictly my opinion and by no means is the only way to interpret this episode of the show.

The episode I have chosen to analyze is titled “Blood is Thicker Than Mud.” It is my opinion that this episode does a service, not only to the African American community, but to the community in general by discussing an important issue such as racism and in a way helps to eliminate the African American stereotype.

In this episode The main characters, Will (Will Smith) and his cousin Carlton (Alfonso Ribeiro) attempt to join a fraternity. However, the head brother of the fraternity, which consists of all African Americans, feels that Carlton is not right for this fraternity. Carlton comes from a rich , well off family and does not fit the African American stereotype. When asked why he didn’t want Carlton the head of the fraternity responds by saying that Carlton is not what he feels a “brother” should be. When asked what he feels a “brother” should be says, “Its not Ralph Lauren shirts and wing tipped shoes in corporate America.” He is referring to the cloths that Carlton is wearing in that scene. He then precedes to call Carlton a “sell out.”

This episode does a service to the entire community by dealing with the issue of race. When people think of racism, it is normally thought as one race towards another race, but by showing an African American being racist towards another African American shows that racism is a double edged sward. By pointing out that racism not only exists between races but amongst people of the same race as well it draws attention to the problem and can lead to it being fixed. And it points out that it is a problem that we need to fix now. The father played by James Avery ends the show asking an important question, “When are we going to stop doing this to ourselves?”

This episode also does a service to the community by pointing out that it is okay to be different and to go against the stereotype that has been created for your particular group. This show does this by showing a wealthy African American man acting the complete opposite of what many would argue as the African American stereotype.

As stated earlier this is by no means the only way to interpret this episode. This is simply my interpretation of the episode and its characterization of African Americans. There are many ways in which this show can be interpreted, I simply offer one way to interpret it.

Shepard, Devon & Vinson, Chuck. (1994) Blood is Thicker Than Mud [atelevision series episode] United States: NBC Studios.

 

Lets Talk Copyright!

This week for my Mass Media and Society class my assignment is to address the issue of copyrights and how long that they are in effect. Currently a copyright lasts for a lifetime plus seventy years. After the lifetime plus seventy years the copyrighted item loses its copyright and becomes available for public use. The length that a copyright lasts as raised serious questions about a copyrights effect on free speech. Personally, I believe that a lifetime plus seventy years is an adequate length of time. I feel that it is important to protect a person’s work.

Music tends to be the topic which draws the most attention, especially in today’s society with all of the piracy that exists through the internet. There are many issues to consider. First is the financial effects that taking somebody’s music can cause. Illegally downloading music costs artists and writers money from record sales.

In some cases taking a person’s copyrighted work is the same as plagiarism. It is important that the work of people who right the music we listen to is protected. The issue that most compares to plagiarism, would be copyrighted art work. This refers to companies’ logos and symbols. Taking these logos to use for something that they were not initially meant to be used for could give a misconception of a company’s intent. This could, much like with music, have an adverse effect on the financial well being of a company. The use of music to indorse a policy or position that the musician and/or composer does not agree with could ultimately give the impression that the artist or composer also support that cause. If the cause is a controversial one then again it could have a negative effect on that person and his or her career.

It is important that we protect the rights of people who work hard and have that work copyrighted. If people feel that others are take advantage of their work, then they might feel inclined to stop doing their work and we would not have the music or art work that our society enjoys so much. So I disagree with those that say that copyrights last too long, in my opinion they should be more like patents and last forever! Only then will people’s work truly be protected.

Lets Talk Science!

This week my assignment for my Mass Media and Society class is to read an article from a mainstream newspaper and analyze the media’s coverage of either a science or health story. I chose to analyze an article in the New York Times written by Benedict Carey titled, “In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents’ Genes in Competition.” This article is about a new theory of brain development which, some believe could help solve the mystery behind mental disorders such as autism and schizophrenia.

In this article I feel that the Reporter did a great job of playing the “custodian of fact” role. Carey does a good job of presenting the facts as they are with a little bit of analysis. The story is not sensationalized as so many science stories are. He presented an article that mentioned both the pros and cons of the study which had been submitted. He discussed why the study could help the field of research and he also discussed the flaws in the theory that was published. He starts by talking about the significance of the theory that has been published, At a time when the search for the genetic glitches behind brain disorders has become mired in uncertain and complex findings, the new idea provide psychiatry with perhaps its grandest working theory since Freud…” After mentioning the positives of the theory he gives this quote, “‘The reality, and I think both of the authors would agree, is that many of the details of their theory are going to be wrong; and it is, at this point, just a theory,” said Dr. Matthew Belmonte, a neuroscientist at

Cornell University. ‘But the idea is plausible. And it gives researchers a great opportunity for hypothesis generation, which I think can shake up the field in good ways.’”

He also validates his article by using credible sources. A neuroscientist at Cornell University, the author of the newly published theory, and a doctor from a children’s hospital in Toronto are all very credible sources to gather information from.

Even though he does spend part of his article mentioning the aspects of the theory that may not be significant, Carey concludes his story with this statement, “But experts familiar with their theory say that the two scientists have, at minimum, infused the field with a shot of needed imagination and demonstrated the power of thinking outside the gene. For just as a gene can carry a mark from its parent of origin, so it can be imprinted by that parent’s own experience.

The study of such markers should have a “‘significant impact on our understanding of mental health conditions,” said Dr. Bhismadev Chakrabarti, of the Autism Research Center at the University of Cambridge, “as, in some ways, they represent the first environmental influence on the expression of the genes.’”

Benedict Carey does a great job of being a “custodian of fact” in his latest science article. He presents the facts with a little of his own opinion and analysis.

Lets Talk White Gold!

My assignment for my mass media and society class this week is to examine the effectiveness of a branded media community. The community which I have chosen to examine for this assignment is a website titled whitegoldiswhitegold.com. This is an interesting site that has a message centered around milk and the positive effects that it can on people’s bodies. The theme of this site is based around the idea of a rock star and hi band and throughout the site you can play games and participate in interactive activities. At the end of each of these activities and games the user receives a message on their screen that tells you one of the many positive effects that milk can have on people.

I felt that this website was totally ineffective because, to me, it makes a joke of drinking milk which seems to be the complete opposite of the intention of the site. The site is trying to encourage people to live a healthier life style and to start by drinking more milk. By making a joke of it, it could be in fact, deterring people from drinking milk. I spent approximately one hour on the website, and while some of the games and activities were entertaining, the last thing on my mind was whether or not I was going to drink more milk.

This site may have just failed to convince me to drink more milk, but it could work on a younger demographic. The interactive part of this site might interest children and if children get interested in this site it could convince them to drink milk starting at a younger age, thus leading to a healthier life style. If this site can indeed have a positive effect on some people than it is working. Even if only one person gets something positive out of this site, and others like it, then I guess that they are serving their purpose. However, this site failed to convince me of anything, in fact I can’t understand how this site could have an effect on anybody. Maybe its just me!

Lets Talk Violence in the Movies!

My assignment for my mass media and society class this week was to examine a mass medium which may have negative effects on today’s society. I have chosen to examine the possible negative effects that violence in movies has on today’s society, specifically children. Based on the secondary research that I have conducted I believe that violence in film does not have a negative effect on today’s society.

The three sources that I examined were all academic journals and the first of which I examined discussed the impact of violence in comedic movies between 1951 and 2000. It sites, “Freud (1958) argued that although non-hostile humor can evoke a mild chuckle, only tendentious humor (humor that relies on someone being ridiculed or victimized) can evoke peals of uncontrolled laughter.” After using this to form its argument it claims, “Sometimes tendentious humor manifests as actual physical violence.” However, after using this analysis, along with other studies, this article draws the conclusion that “In sum, what is clear about comedic violence is that it has been relatively pervasive in comedy films, especially since the 1970s. There is no clear message in violent comedy about good triumphing over evil, nor does violence in comedy films appear to be widely used as a vehicle to send negative messages about particular

societal subgroups.”

Another academic journal that I looked at addressed the issue of violence in “Slasher” films from the 90’s and discuses the effects that they have on male viewers. This article claims that violence, specifically against women, can leave men feeling disturbed. However, it counters this argument by saying, “Exposure to scenes of explicit violence juxtaposed with sexual images is believed to blunt males’ emotional reactions to film violence and lead males to be less disturbed by scenes of extreme violence and degradation directed at women.” Though it also states that this is not necessarily a good thing because it “may undermine viewers’ feelings of concern or empathy for female victims of violence.” However, the argument fails to offer any statistical data to support this argument, therefore it is only a thesis and not a fact.

The last academic journal that I examined discussed the issue of whether or not violence has had a negative effect on society, and after citing many real life examples of violence as a result of movies, came to the conclusion, “Despite the obvious similarities of these events, there is no concrete evidence of a connection between media violence and real life crime.”

After reading these journals, I believe that all three of them reinforce my previous opinion that violence in movies do not have a negative effect on society. The evidence presented I these journals either, agrees with this opinion or offers no statistical data to change my mind. I can think of no argument that anyone could have which would affectively argue against the arguments that I have presented here. In my opinion there is no direct negative effects, from violent films, on society.

Citations:

McIntosh, William D.; Murray, John D.; Murray, Rebecca M.; Manian, Sunita. Mass Communication & Society, Fall2003, Vol. 6 Issue 4, p345-360, 16p; DOI: NO_DOI; (AN 11463323)

 

Sapolsky, Barry S.; Molitor, Fred; Luque, Sarah. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Spring2003, Vol. 80 Issue 1, p28-38, 11p, 5 charts; (AN 9812029)

Australian Screen Education, Autumn2004 Issue 34, p24-25, 2p; (AN 14896757)

Lets Talk Alternative Sources Of Media!

This week my assignment for my Mass Media and Society class is to compare a mainstream form of media and compare it to what is called an alternative source of media! In this case I decided to compare the journalistic styles of CNN.com to a source known as Wiretap. And lets say I was very disappointed in what I saw! I was excited to read a media source that wasn’t of the average big market variety that we are so used to seeing, but what I saw from Wiretap was upsetting!The only stories I was able to find on Wiretap were stories, that to me seemed irrelevant to today’s society! One article asked a question about how Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska would be treated by right winged conservatives if she were a black democrat. How is that relevant to the election. Of course they would treat her differently if she were a democrat; they would treat her like they treat Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or any other democrat. When selecting the environment icon, the education icon, and the immigration icon, I was surprised to see that the most recent articles are dated almost three weeks ago and in some cases even further back than that!

Now I’m not saying that CNN.com covered the best events or stories with the best journalism ever, but at least it covered topics relevant to today’s society! Obviously it discussed the on going election, but it also covered terror trials in Sudan, as well as other international news.

So how can I compare them? First of all they covered completely different stories. CNN.com covered stories that I feel are more relevant to today’s society, while Wiretap covered stories that seemed to me to be pure fluff stories that were of no relevance to the events occurring in today’s world. CNN.com covered stories of both international and domestic issues, while Wiretap focused more on domestic issues, if you can call them issues. Both sources did seem to have fairly objective journalism, but the differences in the issues that were covered was a little disturbing! Why do readers care about what would happen if Sarah Palin were a black democrat? In my opinion there are more important things to be concerned about, the environment on the verge of collapse, an American government and economy that are about to go through some drastic changes, genocide issues in Darfur; it seems that Wiretap has its priorities a little mixed up!

But in all fairness, it may just be me. These are just my opinions and I am just a student and a I may be completely wrong, but I don’t think so. These topics and articles may be relevant to people in today’s society. People may care about what if Sarah Palin were a black democrat. However in my opinion, if these are the news sources that people are turning to then there us no wonder why America is where it is today! I can only hope that there are more alternative sources of media that do cover stories as well as CNN.com does, and Im sure that there are, so don’t be afraid to look for them!

 

Lets Talk Media Coverage!

This blog post is an assignment for my mass media and society class, the class for which I started this bolg! My assignment this week was to monitor three days of election coverage from one media source. In this case I chose to monitor the Politico coverage, via the articles posted on Yahoo! News. After monitoring the coverage over the last few days, I am supposed to look for the roles that the media played, based on Kathleen Hall Jameson and Paul Waldman’s book The Press Effect. In order to shape my argument, my professor has asked me to use Toulman’s model.

After having read approximately six or seven articles, posted by Politico, on Yahoo! News over the last three days, I believe that Politico did a decent job covering the election. In the news coverage that I read for this assignment, a majority of the articles were well thought out, and portrayed the media in the “custodian of facts” role. Some of the articles that I read focused on horse race politics, while a majority, of the articles analyzed the candidates stances on important, issues such as Russia.

The “custodian of fact” role is the most important role the media can play! In this role, as described in The Press Effect, the reporter not only reports the story, but offers insight and analysis on the events of the story. While this is the most important role for the media to play in society, asking a reporter to analyze a story can often lead to the reporter’s opinion coming out in the story. As I stated in my introductory post for this class, I believe that it is important for members of the media to remain as unbiased as possible! Therefore when offering analysis of a story the press should try to offer analysis for both sides of the story. This seems like a hard thing for most reporters to do!

This blog post is only based on a limited number of articles by Politico and were chosen only from the ones posted on Yahoo! News. It is possible that other articles posted by Politico took on a different role in the media, however the ones that I read took on the role of “custodian of fact” as stated above!

 

Lets Talk “Rate the Debate 2008”

On Tuesday October seventh was the second of three debates between the two presidential nominees, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. For this debate a large group of approximately three hundred students at the University of Oregon gathered in Columbia Hall room 150 for “Rate the Debate 2008”, a program set up by the professors of journalism at the university. This program was set up in order to get the UO students involved in this historical political campaign. After watching the debate the students were asked a series of questions about their opinions of each candidates performance. The three hundred students in attendance failed to prove previous polls wrong. Polls have shown that Senator Obama is leading heavily in the youth vote and that’s exactly how the youth at the U. of O. voted in their poll questions following the debate. The students overwhelmingly believed, with 65% of the vote, that Senator Obama won the debate. This is compared to the 12% that believed that McCain won the debate. 59% of those polled also believed that what Senator Obama said had more substance than the arguments made by Senator McCain and 54% believed that McCain ran more negative ads than Obama. These poll questions only proved one thing, that the youth of this country does indeed support Senator Obama, but, are they correct when they say that he won the debate? Lets take a look.

It was clear from the beginning that the gloves were coming off for both candidates when they continued to take shots at each other’s voting record in the senate and their previous stances on the economy. While both candidates presented compelling arguments I believe that it was Senator Obama that barely squeaked out ahead in winning the debate about the economic plans for the future of this country. While McCain spoke with a sense of confidence in the future of the economy and certainly hit his marks regarding Obama’s voting record in the senate, he had one thing going against him, the fact that he is a part of the party which many Americans believe screwed up the economy in the first place. Every time that McCain made a point about his plan for the economy Obama was able to compare it to the failed economic policies of the Bush administration. And for that reason only I feel that Obama squeaked out a victory in the debate over the economy.

Next they turned to the environmental problems facing the country in yet another close debate over what the best policy to handle the environmental change should be. In this debate I feel that McCain had the best argument, that’s not to say that I agreed with him, but I do believe that he presented his argument the best. While I disagree with his plans for off shore drilling and believe that we should focus on finding a renewable source of energy, I feel that Obama could have attacked his plans to drill of shore more than he did. I also found a problem with both arguments and mentioning the need for safe nuclear power. To me that phrase, safe nuclear power, is an oxymoron. Did we forget about the accident at Three Mile Island under the Carter administration? I don’t want to speak for all Americans, but I’m pretty sure that most of them would like to avoid a repeat. So, while nuclear energy sounds good in theory, the amount of money, time, and resources that it would take to develop it to the point that there are few risks, makes it not a viable short-term solution. I believe that McCain won the debate on environmental policy, however, both of them had weak arguments.

Next they turned to the issue of health care. On this argument I believe that they tied, because both of their health care plans suck! McCain’s plan, I don’t believe, will change anything with the current health care problems in this country. And Obama’s plan to require small businesses to give health care to their employees will force hundreds of small business owners, who can’t afford to do so, to go out of business. And McCain is right it would force businesses to lay off employees and quit hiring new employees because they can’t afford to give the health care that Obama’s plan requires. On the topic of health care they both fail miserably, not because they made bad arguments but because neither of them have very good plans.

The last topic that they debated was, what has been called Obama’s weakest area, foreign policy! Like in the debate over the economy they both hit some good points, but like the debate over health care, both pf their plans are very flawed. Obama complains that the Bush administration has wasted trillions of dollars in Iraq, which is true. He also says that he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, which is also true. But he is not going to bring them home and he is not going to save this country the trillions of dollars that the Bush administration is wasting in Iraq, instead he is going to send our troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only thing that this means is that instead of spending trillions of dollars in Iraq we will be spending it in Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain on the other hand wants to leave our troops in Iraq and send more troops into Iran. So, as well as spending trillions in Iraq we will be spending trillions in Iran as well. I would also like it if McCain quit calling the war in Iraq a victory. If over 4000 dead Americans is a victory, I would hate to see what he calls a defeat. I do agree with McCain when he says that American blood is the most precious commodity that we have. And God bless those brave men and women that are over seas fighting for, and defending our great country, but I believe that we have wasted too much of that precious commodity in Iraq, when, as Obama said our energy should be spent looking for the man who planned the attack that killed approximately 3000 Americans.

In my opinion the only thing Barack Obama needed to do in this debate was avoid any serious gaffs, and he did just that. This is his election to lose. On the other hand however, if you were relying on this debate to help persuade you one way or another the odds are that it didn’t because there was no clear cut winner. I believe this debate was a tie!

I f you missed any part of the debate, or just want to watch it again, you can at:

Part one:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/07/debate2.obama.mccain.part1.cnn

 

 

 

 

 

Part two:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/07/debate2.obama.mccain.part2.cnn

 

 

 

Lets Talk Politics

Hello readers,

My name is Richard Stutsman and I was born and raised in the state of California and spent the last ten years living in Ukiah, a small town in northern California. Ukiah is approximately a two-hour drive north of San Francisco. I am currently a freshmen at the University of Oregon and I have started this blog as a requirement for my mass media and society class. While some of my blog posts will be required to earn credit for that class, I do intend to use this blog to discuss issues that I feel are important. In this historical election season my posts will often be about important political issues. While I am a man of strong opinions and beliefs, I feel that it is important for people in the public eye, specifically members of the media, to remain as unbiased as possible, and that is my goal. So, while one week I may post a blog criticizing Barack Obama, my very next post may be criticizing John McCain.  I have strong opinions and I will express them on these blog posts, and some comments may be controversial, but I mean no offense to anybody. 

I am also an avid sports fan, specifically a big baseball fan, therefore there may be times when I post blogs that express my opinion and analysis on certain sporting events as well, especially since the World Series is just around the corner and football season is heating up. Having grown up in northern California, I was raised a die hard Giants and Forty Niners fan, and I tend to root for the Warriors and Sharks as well.  Unlike when I cover politics, I will be less careful to remain unbiased, because I have my likes and dislikes when it comes to sports teams.  

I look forward to getting my opinions out on the web for the first time.  I also look forward to reading the comments that my readers post on my blog, because I feel that knowing everybody’s opinion will help strengthen, or shape, my argument.  I hope that my blog posts are of interest and excitement to my readers because the issues are important and exciting to me. Thank you, and I look forward to reading the comments that people post!