Al Jazeera: Bias or just a Different Perspective?

  In the first article I read, "Fresh violence breaks out in Yemen," I can't say that there was what most people generally think of as bias; I would call it more of a perspective. I also wouldn't say that it had any more of a bias than American commercial networks either.

This particular article's "perspective," as I'm deciding to call it, was objective in the sense that it had attributed quotes and gathered facts to support the author's coverage. The ways in which the author used these quotes and facts - the light the writer shined on it - was in any case to show governmental mistreatment to the citizens of Yemen even though they were involved in the violence. The author writes with sympathy for the violence inflicted on the people; however, he or she does not leave out details about police being killed.

Everything that the reporter mentions in the article had fact with attributions attached to them. This is mainly why I believe that his or her coverage is objective. Total objectivity is essentially impossible. Like American media, it, too, has a side. With violent anti-government protests like this with high amounts of violence on all sides is hard not to have one worse off than another. My only problem with the reporters coverage is that there are a few unnamed sources, but it seemed that with such violent ongoing story as this people don’t want to stick their necks out.  

The Intolerance of Others Should be Tolerated

As Americans, it’s important that we value freedom of speech and are tolerant of the opinions of others. That being said, there’s a line. It’s hard to see where that line begins and ends, but when it’s crossed, it’s difficult to go back. Florida pastor, Terry Jones, crossed this line when he burned the Koran to honor troops fighting the war in Afghanistan. 

There’s a difference between being patriotic and being a bigot. Jones is in category bigot. I suppose it wasn’t a hate crime doing what he did, but it certainly bordered it. The author of the editorial to the New York Times responding to Jones’ act is right in saying that the outright intolerance displayed by this isn’t helping matters overseas. All its doing is making us, Americans, look like, well, narrow-minded jerks to put it mildly. 

It is important that we exercise our right to free speech responsibly. The media makes nearly everything that goes on a permanent record of our history. While it’s imperative to report on something like Jones’ case, media needs to cover it objectively. Free speech goes both ways, and it’s great others speak out to say Jones was wrong in burning the Koran and that he far from embodies Americans who support the war.

Our system as a democracy allows for more than one view in our media. The issue of Jones’ actions tends to blur things regarding free speech under the First Amendment. However, it’s hard to argue that he had no right to publicly express his feelings about the Koran and what his reasoning is behind what he believes it represents, be they based on hate, intolerance and ignorance.           

Movie Ratings: Who Decides and Why? I Don't Know

Sex in movies is one thing.We can see Kate Winslet’s breasts in “Titanic,” and it's okay, still PG-13, which I believe is appropriate - Italy airs nudity on TV and less murders than the U.S. As for violence, however, territory seems heavily traveled on R ratings. You, Professor Bock, brought up “Saw,” which is surprising it didn’t get an NC-17 rating because it’s practically a snuff film. How movie ratings are decided is curious. I don’t know if “tastefully done” is at all relevant. 

I’d like to talk about one of my favorite movies: “Natural Born Killers.” It was very artistically done. Take that great horrifying scene with Rodney Dangerfield, playing the role of Mallory’s, one of the main characters, abusive father. It changes from the sitcom format with lush, saturated colors and rich with background laughter and applause from the televised audience to a 35mm black and white scene of her decadent and depraved father squeezing her ass. The main word slipping the lips of many critics about the film was “controversial,” because many thought the violence was done too over the top. Although controversial, this crime-drama is packed with cultural satire – media being at its center. It’s not just the story of husband and wife tearing across the American heartland on a murder spree. Well, it is that, but it’s not violence for the sake of violence. There is so much to it. 

I don’t know if any of this matters. Who am I to say “Saw” isn’t well done, but tastefully done, I personally don’t think so. I do know, however, that movies are not, say, cigarettes; they won’t harm you. I don’t believe ratings should be handled with more care; in fact, I think there should be less intervention. Warning labels, as we’ve learned from cigarettes, are almost meaningless. Why not go as far as to put ratings on books? I nearly passed out reading Chuck Palahnik’s short story “Guts.” It’s people’s work that’s being judged, which I think can be more troubling than seeing a little gore or an ass or breasts. Time is also a factor. What’s considered on the margins one day, Hanson says, might shift to the middle where it’s accepted the next, which, once again, makes ratings meaningless.  

War of the Senses

Despite the number of times it was announced that Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds” was just a dramatized radio program, all disclaimers soared over some people’s heads, and they headed for the rooftops. Without first hearing the broadcast, it may be hard to believe it sent people into such a panic, but after listening to it and taking into account the year it was done, its brilliance and effect on some audience members is really an outstanding thing to achieve if you think about it. The symbolic interaction which went on in this instance is a curious thing.

Driven by the collective fear of the unknown, some people mistook fiction for what could have passed as an actual news broadcast. The way in which it was done may be simple by today’s standards, but for the technology available then, it couldn’t have been better. Its simplicity adds realism to it. There are also interviews with what would be extremely credible sources had the whole thing not been fake. Interrupting the music by a special bulletin about something crashing in New Jersey, and brushing it off and nonchalantly returning to the music was a genius move to create an authentic reality for listeners. Increasing concern and updates slowly builds the story. The believability of the broadcast must be factored into the hysteria it stirred.

Radio was one of the main places people got their news. Imagine coming home and switching it on to find a professor saying Martians were invading Earth. Most of us want to believe we’d have been smarter, but look at the Onion News. People have been tricked before and will likely be tricked again. Common sense is often retroactive, and it had probably not dawned on people it was silly to think Martians annihilated the U.S. military in 34 minutes.      

The Mobile Marketplace

I read an article on mediapost.com called “Mobile Rocks.” The point highlighted in the article is that people are increasingly using mobile devices for things other than “talking and texting,” getting its information from the comScore 2010 Mobile Year in Review report. This tells us nothing we don’t know already. People are walking around with computers in their pockets, so of course they are turning to their mobile devices for things other than chatting. The question which pops in my mind when I read the article is left unanswered: What does this mean for media companies and for the marketplace of ideas?  

“The challenge for marketers and brands,” the author says, “will be how to successfully navigate through one of the most complex and rapidly evolving mediums.” The main thing which comes to mind is synergy. These brands and markets can potentially reach anyone with a mobile device. On almost every commercial I watch, it asks me to join them on their Facebook page, which is something the author says is a “huge driver of mobile social networking” and is one of the fastest growing mobile content category in the US. Facebook and other markets can use technology to work together and grow – and it is.

This is where the marketplace of ideas is concerned. Facebook can potentially link everyone together in one place where everything can be shared. However, to me it seems that people only want to talk about themselves and things which are familiar to them. The ones who they talk to are likely going to be similar-minded and will reinforce existing ideas rather than advancing discourse, so it stands unanswered whether or not this increase in the use of mobile devices will advance the marketplace of ideas.

The fact that everyone can be reached may be better for the “markets and brands” the author mentions than for people as a whole. It is so new, though, no one seems to know exactly what will happen. Maybe synergy will branch from media and other companies benefiting to everyone benefiting.      

Go Shopping

Oh, where to start: Ads. They are everywhere. I can’t crack a fortune cookie or rest a cup on a coaster without seeing an advertisement. It’s to the point that they are hardly noticeable. I believe that ads are less significant to consumers today because we are relentlessly bombarded with them that it is normal to see ads. Far more choices are presented to consumers than in the past. Also, since fragmentation has become so prominent in media, advertisement has branched out with it because where there are media outlets, there are advertisements. Ads try convincing us that their product is the best, yet they are all so similar. 

You need this; we need your help; you deserve this: these seem to be the main categories – cars, cosmetics, medicine, fast-food, charity, insurance (how often do people change insurance?), candy, entertainment, cleaning supplies, alcohol, etc. These are the main players it seems. After awhile, I seldom had to write down advertising categories; it’s just within those categories there a endless product options to choose from.     

Something which strikes me as strange is seeing ads for things which, to me anyway, don’t need to be advertised. McDonald’s, for example, does not need to advertise for Big Macs. We know where to go to get burgers. It seems it is ingrained in the very nature of capitalism to advertise, as it were.  

Ads not only play a role for consumers, but they also serve the media which show them. Much of media’s revenue is generated from advertisers. Since there are many media outlets, there are many ads – some might argue too many ads. The nice thing about the variety of choices, though, is that we can choose to ignore them if we please. 

Radio Never Shuts Up

Of course, radio isn’t dead. The medium of radio has been around a long time, and when television became the new choice of media for many people, radio adapted by narrowing its audience. Then, Internet swept people up, which presented problems for every type of media. Still, radio adapted. Narrowing audiences with specialized formats seems to be part of the solution for them to stay in business; also, like local newspaper, people like to hear from their area. 

Addressing specialized formats, Pandora Radio, for instance, the create-your-own-radio-station website, has changed radio on the web. Also, there are things like Dylan Radio where fans can tune in to Bob’s playlist and his own radio show where he hosts. Radio is finding new ways to use new technologies like the Internet to complement it and enhance its medium, making it available to listeners in new ways. Many radio stations, in fact, have their own website.

Satellite radio is another example of radio finding its audience by narrowing listenership. It’s popular largely because listeners have choices for every genre of entertainment, such as music, talk, sports, comedy, documentary, etc.

When you turn the radio on and hit seek, a station will come on. No dead air is a sign of radio’s continuing existence. It’s no mystery that people, Americans in particular, have shorter attention spans when it comes to media than in the past. We like to keep busy. During morning drive, most people are listening to something.

For about a year, I had no radio in my car, no sound at all except wind and my motor. Let me say, I nearly lost my mind on long commutes. During this time, I was working in a flower shop at which the only clear station was an oldies AM one: 1410. The power of locals shined through on this station. Advertisements were on for places I drove by on delivery daily. People called in to sell their crap and leave a number to call for those interested in buying it. FM radio is my main choice in the car; my formats are usually classic rock and plain old classical. Like the Internet, many stations interact with listeners by taking call-ins for games, Q&As, and just to hear what song you want to hear – maybe one which isn’t on your IPod.

Marketplace of Ideas

            What we have in United States media, because it’s a democratic society, is a melting pot of ideas – the marketplace of ideas. Typically, when people think of media, many only consider two sides: left (being liberal) and right (being conservative). Even boiled down to these general two, the marketplace of ideas has checks and balances from opposing viewpoints. By comparison, left and right are closer to the middle than others; it’s where the majority stands. Yet, no one has all the power. This is true in politics and in media. 

People label television news stations, for example, as leaning more one way than the other, but there are many more viewpoints. Because opposing viewpoints exist, different variations of them turn out on both sides. The Tea Party movement, for instance, has a lot of similarities to Republican views just like Socialism has similarities to Democratic views, but still, they are not the same, not completely anyway. For every political standpoint, there is media supporting it.

The impact of media fragmentation and audience segmentation has on how we approach issues is the media outlets we can do so through. However, no matter how many views are presented in media, only a few will dominate in politics. Actions are truly limited in that respect. Plus, the people reading, watching, and listening to media presenting less prominent viewpoints are mostly the few supporters of that specific viewpoint. Everyone else is busy in the middle. The nice thing about democracy, though, is that we have the freedom to express different views, which is possible because of different media. Someone can try pushing something onto another person, but he or she has the opportunity for rebuttal.       

O, The Oprah Magazine Says, "You Can, Too."

On Oprah’s website in the O, The Oprah Magazine section, there’s a preview and a picture of the current issue, which reads, “The make-your-dreams-real issue! Yes, you can have your ideal body, a better job, extra energy, more love, less stress, a fresh outlook... The new you begins here.” Another version is this is also the coverline for the hardcopy issue. Its articles, such as “20 Questions That Can Change Your Life” and “Make Over My Mornings,” are mostly about making a better you, and by you, I mean women over the age of 35 who have jobs, families, educations, and, well, a craving to be “I am woman: hear me roar!” 

Nearly 70 ads, out of a 200 page issue, are in O magazine. By the ads’ content, signaling told me – as a young man – that I’m not the demographic for this magazine. The inside cover and first page has an ad for Tiffany & Co, the “Tiffany Filigree Heart” necklace. 

On the back cover is a cosmetic product to give women visibly younger skin. There were a lot of cosmetics ads: 30 or so. These, however, aren’t the same ads you’d see in Cosmopolitan magazine; these are aimed right at women age 35 or older. The models are not 20 years old. Although still strikingly beautiful, which may be to give the impression that you, too, can look like this if you buy our product, the models are nearer to the age of Oprah’s demographic. 

Also, it’s important to not only keep in mind the age group of the targeted women, but class, too. These products aren’t cheap. Costly cars, expensive jewelry, designer clothes, and Starbucks account for a number of the magazine’s advertisements.     

Something I find misleading is the high number of cross-media synergy ads going on: much of the time, I’d have to examine the pages carefully because it was hard to tell whether I was looking at an ad or an editorial – usually it was an ad. The health ads are often misleading, too, because it’s like their saying, “Yeah, Oprah lost weight using Jenny Graig, Weight Watchers, and Nutrisystem.” Then, you flip a page and see delicious looking chocolates all over the page. Make up your mind, O. Or is that the strategy? Make them fat, lose weight, get fat again, and lose it again. You can do it; you are woman! Roar! Oh, but before you drive your nice car home and take off your jewelry, stop by the store and pick up some Febreze and toilet paper. The ads’ aim couldn’t me more on target. The articles’ content is in sync with ads’ content, but the disadvantage of this, if it is one at all, is that not everybody has the money for most of these products.