Media versus Venezuela

The recent anti-government protests in Caracas, Venezuela, in direct protest of President Nicolas Maduro, have not only taken the country by storm, but social media as well.

Social media is uncovering the truths and lies behind what Venezuelans, and Americans, hear and see through mainstream broadcast news. Recently, former president Hugo Chavez forced a slant in media coverage, making Venezuelan broadcasters report biased and political propaganda-driven news.

This has caused the new generation of Venezuelans to take action—this time, not in a physical manner.

“I don’t trust our television and radio stations at all,” said Adriana Sanchez in a brief interview with USA Today in Caracas. “The government stations just run propaganda, while the few privately owned stations are afraid to broadcast the truth. What other options do we have?”

Many Venezuelans have resorted to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to stay informed and to understand the discrepancy between what they see on their television screens and what they read online. While both the government and the opposition are using social media to promote their own agendas, the truth is more readily available to citizens who need it most—including journalists.

According to the Venezuelan news website, panorama.com.ve, media outlets have been victimized by protesters and police harassing journalists on the streets.

CNN reported this week that its news crew had its cameras and transmission taken away at gunpoint.

This suppressive nature of news journalism has had a tremendous impact on what major news corporations and publications from around the world are reporting. While the chaos continues to unravel in Venezuela, news outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera English, have all had minimal coverage of Venezuela due to this lack of information.

Therefore, it has been up to Venezuelans to make a stand for their rights and their country without fighting fire with fire. From the Venezuelan-Americans of Miami to the new generation of Venezuelan descendants around the world, social media has provided more ways to uncover the truth than ever before.

Venezuela: No voice, no democracy

By SOFIA ORTEGA

Students have been out on the streets of every major city in Venezuela since Feb. 12, leaving until today six deaths, many injured, and hundreds arrested.

Leopoldo López, one of the opposition leaders from the political party “Volundad Popular,” urged all citizens to march peacefully against the regime of President Nicolás Maduro to put an end to the economic and social crisis of the country.

Maduro also summoned his followers to a manifest for “peace” in which he claimed indirectly to López, “Coward, fascist, surrender yourself that we are looking for you.”

The government issued a captive order to López for the incidents that happened at the march on Feb. 12. He was charged with conspiracy, arson, homicide and terrorism.

López turned himself to the authorities in front of tens of thousands protesters.

“If my imprisonment serves to awaken this town, so be it,” López said shortly before turning himself. “I have nothing to fear. I will always give the face.”

Even though the most serious charges (murder and terrorism) were dropped; if López is convicted he could face up to 10 years of jail.

But who is it really to blame?

According to the constitution, Venezuelans have the right to protest peacefully.

President Maduro blames it on activist Leopoldo López for calling the opposition to protest.

However, images and videos not shown by the media in Venezuela are proof that the National Guard is using arms against civilians and that they are the authors of the crimes that occurred.

Yes, military. The ones who promise the country to look for its citizens are shooting, torturing and beating students.

The protests are not only being held in Venezuela, but all around the world.

Today, it is not anymore a problem of different political ideologies, but about the safety and the millions of innocent people that die every day in Venezuela.

Students in Venezuela are risking their lives at the protests to because they want democracy, freedom of speech, safety.

As well, students living outside of Venezuela have become the voice of the country. They are effectively using social media to expand the truth and welcome people to join their struggle.

It is uncertain what the future holds for Venezuela, but protests are growing stronger and leave no signal of ending soon.

News coverage of dangerous trends

By NICOLE HOOD

In the last year, CNN has covered two dangerous trends: a game called “Knockout” and another called “Neknominate.”

Knockout is a dangerous game that CNN started covering in November 2013. It entails one individual (generally in a group of teenagers) going up to a stranger and punching them with the intention of knocking them out instantaneously.

CNN has also reported that Knockout has caused more than one death in the Northeastern states of the US. Videos of teenagers doing this generally come from security cameras on streets, and news coverage showed these videos with the intention of exposing the game and impressing upon people really how lethal and irrational the game can be.

Neknominate, on the other hand, is a drinking game that has become trendy through social media. Videos are easily accessible and abundant on the internet.  Here, an individual generally downs a hefty amount of alcohol mixed with something else, takes a video of it and, upon finishing the drink, the individual nominates a friend to out-do them within the next 24 hours.

Videos show teenagers not only downing usual mixed drinks but, in an effort to out-do their friends, players have mixed in their drink with a dead mouse, goldfish, insects, engine oil and dog food. Five people have died from playing this game, all being men under the age of 30. News coverage battles social media and the spread of this openly videoed social trend.

While players of one game generally avoid social media (for the risk involved of going to jail or juvy), players of another game use social media as a form of pressure to encourage others to play. Either way, the news reporters step in not only to report what is happening but to prevent others from participating in social trends that appeal to one’s (generally teenager’s) dangerous need to prove themselves to their friends or to the public.

In my last blog post, I wrote about the dangers of news pieces including certain social topics. In this post, however, I’d like to acknowledge how using social topics in the news can put a much needed negative spin on social trends. Of course, these social trends are newsworthy partially because the harm coming from them are not temporary but rather fatal, and most players don’t realize that.

People who watch these videos of Neknominate on Facebook might see it as an exciting challenge or other, uninvolved viewers might find it fascinating that someone would drink liquor out of a toilet or successfully drink something with a dead rat in it.

The news’ video compilation presents the same content but instead of a bunch of kids sitting around a computer oohing and aahing at a friend doing something nasty, the video shows a wider audience how Neknominating is fickle and dangerous.

Sources:

Why can’t Hollywood be more original?

By KYLA THORPE

It seems to happen nearly every year. Movie producers in Hollywood are often doing reboots of films that were big hits.

Why can’t they just leave the original film alone? Don’t they realize that it’s a little strange to recreate movies, with new actors, when the original actors are still alive and well, able to continue their previous roles?

I can understand rebooting a film that was created 40 or more years ago. The film could’ve been terrible back then and producers want to make something big of it now.  Maybe Hollywood wants to bring a trend back, make some extra cash. I get it, it’s a business.

What really annoys me is how movies that were terrific not even more than 10 years ago are being remade into newer films with terrible reviews.

For example, I remember seeing the original Spider-Man movie in the theater in 2002. I loved it. The world loved it. Tobey Maguire played this role until 2007, ending the series with Spider-Man 3.

So why was it rebooted in 2012 and called the Amazing Spider-Man, with a new actor, Andrew Garfield?

This is strange to me and confusing. Between the original Spider-Man and the Amazing Spider-Man, there isn’t even 10 years. They could’ve just asked Tobey Maguire to come back and restart the series!

Doesn’t Hollywood hire script writers to create new material? Are there no other superheroes within the Marvel or DC Comic Universe for them to create an extensive series about?

The reason why I’m asking this question is that, today, the cast for the new Fantastic Four movie was released. The Fantastic Four movie, that I also saw in the theater, came out in 2005. The new one is slated for 2015.

Reboots for movies that aren’t at least 20 years old are unnecessary. The point of a reboot is to make something better, to bring it more to life.

Reboots are usually rated lower, have around the same CGI and have similar story lines where the audience is not at all very surprised by the ending.

When will Hollywood stop doing this?

Olympics: World news or gossip?

By NICOLE HOOD

The Olympics are at the forefront of today’s world news. However, there are moments when I question the priority of news reporters.

The other day, I went on CNN and the first thing I saw was U.S. ice skater Ashley Wagner’s face of disappointment at her score.

There are many things about the Olympics to report on that hold a lot of significance — the condition of Sochi as a city to host such a big event, human rights problems in Russia, countries’ relative numbers of medals — but, in my view, an athlete’s lack of composition in such an intense moment is not worthy of the front page of such a major world news website.

In my opinion, to place a picture of the face of disappointment as one of the ‘five favorite moments from the first weekend of the Olympics’ is a cruel joke. The article drew just as much attention to a few seconds of infuriated disappointment as it did to Russia winning its first gold medal in the games and total medals won after the first weekend.

To be fair, the article featured Jamie Anderson’s (American gold medalist) tweet about her gratitude to friends and family after her great performance. Although this is another example of social media appearing in the world news, at least it’s fitting under the category of “favorite moments.” Amy Wagner’s face was not on this list because it was endearing, it was because it was scandalous.

Do we really find scandals so important that they should be put in newspapers? Are we looking for ways to interest the public in the 2014 Olympics? Are we just fixated on having a list of five that the reporters felt inclined to place this example in with the rest?

The second question can be answered with a simple “no,” as the first sub-headline of the report, the first example, was “That face.” This was the first topic presented to the audience.

I urge reporters to at least think about the first two questions before they choose topics. When presented side-by-side, news transfer a sense of importance. An important event may elevate another’s importance, even if the latter doesn’t attract that much on its own. On the other hand, something like gossip in world news could end up downplaying an event that makes a difference.

A multimillion-dollar media holiday

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

When most people think of Valentine’s Day, the images that come to mind are chocolates, flowers, cards, and candlelit dinners—all manufactured images by advertisers and media companies that have perfected their techniques of triggering viewers’ tear ducts into consumerism. Once the holiday approaches, people are compelled to be suddenly generous and search for the ideal gift for loved ones, and it comes at a price.

The average person spends about $130 on Valentine’s Day each year, with men spending roughly double the amount of women. “The average man plans to shell out $135.35 to impress the people in his life while women only expect to spend $72.28,” stated a survey.

Advertisements continuously promote manufactured love—filled with clichéd greeting cards and abundant heart-shaped chocolates. Many people feel obligated by these unrealistic expectations portrayed through media to buy gifts, reserve dinners at fancy restaurants, and send Valentine cards to loved ones out of pure obligation to this mainstream holiday.

The Greeting Card Association states that about 190 million Valentine’s Day cards are sent each year, and that does not include the millions of cards exchanged by kids as well.

Furthermore, it is the most prosperous holiday for florists, with about 224 million roses grown every year before February. Data shows that 64 percent of men and 36 percent of women buy flowers for Valentine’s Day, according to the IPOS-Insight Floral Trends Consumer Tracking Study.

These costly expectations directly and indirectly affect relationships as well.

About six million people anticipate or plan a marriage proposal on Feb. 14 every year, creating a stigma that pressures many couples into making major decisions on a deadline. Coincidently, condom sales rapidly increase right before the holiday. According to the Indo-Asian News Service, “sales of condoms increase up to 20 percent during Valentine’s week,” which coincides with the supposed $15 million spent on infertility and pregnancy tests the following weeks after, according to The Nielsen Company.

All expenses aside, the holiday’s significance in American culture, and in cultures around the world, is founded in the precious nature of relationships—whether with a significant other, family, friends, or even colleagues and classmates.  While mainstream media have created a multimillion-dollar industry out of the holiday, Valentine’s Day is a reminder to make sure the people who mean the most in your life know they are loved. Maybe advertisers and corporations do have the right idea, after all.

U.S., international coverage differ

By MELISSA MALLIN

Growing up, my parents always watched the news. In the morning, on the way to school, before/after/sometimes during dinner, and right before bed; it was always on.

If my parents weren’t directly sitting down watching the news, it played as background noise. As a teenager, I often awoke to the deep voice of the local news anchor reporting last night’s drama. I remember thinking, “I don’t know how my parents can watch so much news, it’s such a negative and depressing way to start and end ones day.” But, for as long as my parents watched the news, I never really questioned what was being reported.

That was, until I got to college. As I got older, I started paying more and more attention to the news before concluding that most, if not all of it, was full of crap. It always seemed as though reporters weren’t telling the whole story or at least leaving out important details as to obscure the truth.

Something always seemed to be missing, you know, the part of the story that actually made sense. As I continued to grow, I began questioning the information my own country’s media was telling me. The media seems to portray America as a target and victim and in order to prevent the invasion of evil from other countries, we must go to them first and fix their wrongdoings. In the international realm, It appears as though, America has this drastically different conceited view of itself, then that of the rest of the world.

If you’ve ever been to a different country, then you probably know that citizens in most countries strongly dislike and even hate the United States for what it has become. Many people from other countries view Americans as having a materialistic, self-absorbed, ignorant culture that consumes too much, saves too little and bullies the rest of the world. In their eyes, Americans are promiscuous, lethargic, wasteful and arrogant. They believe that Americans think they know everything, believe the rest of the world should be like them and are exceedingly uninformed about politics.

In contrast, Americans view themselves as self-righteous, confident, and moral individuals that carry a sense of nationalism, individualism and religiosity. Americans believe it their duty to overly consume so the economy remains stable. As individuals, Americans tend to be egotistical, conceited, and self-reliant. We, as Americans, believe what we look like, how we dress, and what other people think of us, are much more important than the atrocities of American and/or international politics.

For instance, take a look at these American and international versions of Time magazine covers. The American version tends to the values of American lifestyles whereas the international covers focus on important issues worldwide. Topics from the American version include “The child free life,” “The science of favoritism,” “What makes school great,” “Chore Wars,” and others such as anxiety, Jay Leno, pain, and football. The same issue’s international version of the covers involved “Germany saving the Euro to save itself,””Why Germany can’t save itself,” “Pakistan’s Despair,” “Travels through Islam,” and other topics including revolution redux, the global economy one year later, last stand, and Haiti, the aftermath, respectively. As you can see, the American issues of Time magazine are drastically dumbed down and directed towards everyday life versus keeping us informed about the global issues at hand. In fact, stories featured in the international version are often never included or even mentioned in the American one.

Just compare American news sites to International ones. If you visit Fox News, the main page is filled with stories including Mark Zuckerberg’s stance on immigration, Iran’s nuclear program deal, the longest married couple in the United States, and a postal worker who was shot and killed. Compare these headlines with those featured on an international news site like RT (Russian News) and you’ll see a huge difference. RT includes a multitude of stories involving the Iran nuclear program, and headlines include “Snowden leak reveals NSA’s goal to expand surveillance,” “Crack smoking Toronto mayor more popular than Obama,” and “IRS leaves tax payers at risk for fraud”. The website contains both Russian, international, and American news and includes many stories not found on American news sites. If they are featured on an American news site, the American story is written in a way as to obscure or leave out certain facts that the international site puts forth so bluntly. In my opinion, the international site is more informational and truthful than our own American news. I’ve found more information keeping up with the international stories than I have by keeping up with my own mainstream media.

I’ve recognized this as a pattern in American journalism. Mainstream American news tends to cover less important topics than they obviously should. Our news has drifted away from global and domestic importance and evolved into another form of entertainment. The American media keeps citizens more informed about Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy and Miley Cyrus’s destructive behavior, than on investigative reports about the real issues going on in the middle east and abroad. More importantly, they ignore what’s right in front of us-our country’s own domestic self-destructive behavior.

Our society has fallen ill from its own stupidity. If we continue on this path, we will be left only with what our American media tells us. American news has evolved into yet another form of entertainment in which stories have been dumbed down to attract viewers. The American media obscures the truth, leaves out important details, and often only tells one side of the story if they include the story at all. It is my strongest recommendation that Americans start outsourcing to international media sites in order to grasp and comprehend the whole story. International media doesn’t hide or dumb down global issues in order to entertain and increase their number of readers. They report the story as it is, with collectible facts and truth, and in its full entirety. International media includes details, left out by our own media, and reports the way American media should be reported.

If we continue believing everything the American media tells us, we will lose our capability to think for ourselves and will one day be limited to receiving news the same way North Korean’s receive theirs. We will be told only what our government wants to tell us, and will be forced to live in a false reality, completely oblivious to the outside world.

It is in our greatest self-interest to prevent this from happening.

For more visit, http://livingtheamericandreamineurope.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/how-americans-see-americans/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/what-the-world-thinks-of-us_n_1631833.html.

Kennedy and changing TV journalism

By SHAI FOX SAVARIAU

With the JFK assassination 50th anniversary upon us today, many people are looking back on how this event has shaped history. One thing it did change was the way Americans watched TV for news.

It is said that through the coverage that CBS broadcast about McCarthyism in the 1950s, this was the rise of broadcast journalism. But the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 also made a large impact and marked the point when Americans began to get most of their news and information from television.

From the time there were reports of the first shot fired on that fateful day to days later when the funeral was broadcast live, Americans were focused on their television sets. Until this event, on-going live coverage of a major news event had not happened.

Broadcast journalism has evolved in the sense that now it follows the subject from the beginning to the end. Reports are a narrative now. It became the most accessible medium of news. (Until the Internet came to play, however.)

Kennedy had won the hearts of many Americans by using the television. Since TV was becoming more of a commodity for everyone to have in their homes, people were more in tune with Kennedy and his family and they were more aware of the Kennedys because of the images the TV provided. During the Kennedy/Nixon debates, for example, in the 1960 campaign for president, more than 70 million viewers were tuned in and this is around the time when people in the U.S. were purchasing their first television sets.

When people look back on the assassination, what is mostly remembered are the images that TV had provided at the time, which includes the youngest Kennedy child, John Jr., saluting his dead father during the funeral procession.

The arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald and his assassination by Jack Ruby was also televised that weekend. It was the first time a murder had been televised live to the nation and world. Something that was new to the world at the time.

News has always been about immediacy and accuracy but, after all this happened, it soon became more investigative and thoughtful about the events that were occurring.

These series of events would also shape coverage of the Vietnam War later in the decade as well. The advancement of technology continued to grow and the maturity of broadcast journalism did as well. It became more known that televised news was a more profitable news medium and this was the start of the decline of print journalism.

Broadcast journalism is what helped bring the American people together during that time of despair and has continued to through history and the present.

Deciding what news to broadcast

By MARISSA YOUNG

In my first blog post, I wrote about how news programs are becoming increasingly lenient about their definition of news.  On Monday, Al Sunshine, a former Miami broadcast journalist, spoke to one of my classes.  He brought up another issue: Do we, as journalists, give our audiences what they want or need to hear?

Audiences might want to hear about the latest celebrity gossip: who slept with whom, who’s pregnant, who was caught doing drugs in the bathroom. Other than entertainment, that news has no effect on most people’s daily lives.

But people need to hear about other issues. They need to know about unexpected weather conditions. They need to know about the latest disease outbreak. They might not want to, but they need to know what politicians are doing with their tax money (even if it isn’t scandalous).

So how do you decide what to give audiences?  An obvious solution would be to air both types of stories.  With time and space limits, though, that is impractical. Companies air stories that are of popular interest because they attract the most viewers. However, when it comes down to it, the need to know about certain issues trumps media companies’ concerns about viewership and profitability.

Sometimes, stories can be an issue of life or death. For example, if a certain toy has been recalled because of a toxic part, parents need to know to take it away from their children.

If there is time to air only one story, one that is either popular or critical, is there really an option here?

Could any journalist with a sense of human dignity choose better ratings over the chance to save someone’s life?  Is it better to risk concealing potentially lifesaving information than to risk boring some audience members for a couple minutes?

There is a reason it’s called NEEDING to know, and we must remember this when deciding which news to broadcast.  This way, there will be no guilt hanging over journalists’ heads if they do their best to tell viewers anything that might be vital.

American journalism as it Is today

By MATIAS WODNER

A recent Los Angeles Times article about a well-known author caught my attention because of a quotation within the article. Michael Lewis, author of The Blind Side and Moneyball was attributed with the quote:

“Going from American journalism to British journalism is like going from bratwurst to Mexican food,” he says. “You go from feeling kind of constipated to feeling like you got the runs.”

In addition to being a funny comment, it is also a bit of a scary one to think about, at least from a journalistic perspective. If I’ve learned anything about the news media and about journalism over the past couple years or so, it’s that it is in a state of flux. It isn’t doing well, it isn’t doing horribly, but no one is really sure what to think of it. It has also been challenged in many ways due to ethical problems and controversial scenarios.

And that’s from my perspective in North America.

With that being said, the fact that a respected writer like Lewis is saying that the British side of things is worse off makes me a little uneasy. Not because I plan on moving to Great Britain, but because it means that journalism in America can get even worse. It isn’t overly something to worry about at the moment, and there is still some fine journalism going around, but there is a lot of poor journalism as well.

Fake stories, wrong sourcing, poor grammar, the list goes on. With this booming technological age that we are in, there will undoubtedly be bad journalism. Being first to break a story has become more important than delivering journalistic gold that takes patience.

I’m not sure what it will take to get back to the golden age of journalism or whether we ever will again. But we can at least report the truth, and do it eloquently. Then maybe some of the bad journalists will be scraped out.

Is journalism still important?

By REBECCA FERNANDEZ

With news media changing faster than you can tweet, Tumble or post about it … it is hard to weigh the importance of journalism in this Digital Age.

Print journalism is going through a difficult time: facing deaths of newspapers and media outlets. Is journalism at risk as well?

Many people ask: “What is it that journalists actually do? How do we define a journalist? How is a journalist different than a blogger?” Traditionally, journalists go to the scene themselves and write, narrate, or shoot what is happening. They investigate and publish stories.

In our modern Digital Age, journalists have the ability to do more with the power of technology. We really had a hands-on experience in this through the Scavenger Hunt project in our CNJ 208 reporting class. They filter the clatter of the Internet by gathering all of the relevant articles in one story. They use these powerful new ways of communication to bring attention to important issues, whether they reported first or not. They live-blog and retweet the revolutions by introducing raw facts.

There is a need for professional journalists, not because they know how to write, but because they follow the rules and journalistic ethics, and they are competent about many topics they report on.

Journalism is still relevant, but it has definitely changed.

Facebook users would be large country

By REBECCA FERNANDEZ

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said that the social network now has 1 billion friends.

“Just so we’re clear: As of Sept. 14, one in seven people on this planet has been classified as an active Facebook user,” said Zuckerberg. “If Facebook was a country, it would have the third largest population, right behind China (1,347,350,000) and India (1,210,200,000), and ahead of the United States (314,500,000).”

A recent Pew study showed that the percentage of all Americans getting news from Facebook and other social networks has tripled since 2010. And the proportion of social networkers who regularly get news there has more than doubled.

The percentage of young adults getting news socially has increased from about 20 percent in 2010 to about 33 percent in 2012. The median age of Facebook users is now 22. That’s down from August 2008 when the median age peaked at 26. In January of 2006, the median user age was 19.

We don’t realize how much Facebook has impacted our world, so much so that it is taking over.

Typhoon Haiyan reporters risk their lives

By DANIELLE COHEN

Typhoon Haiyan was one of the powerful storms to ever be recorded and is believed to be the strongest typhoon to ever make landfall in human history.

With 10,000 deaths already confirmed by local officials and the reports of many that are left homeless and hungry, it is pretty clear how dangerous and destructive this storm actually was.

With storms and natural disasters, although it may be extremely dangerous, someone has to be the reporter to go to the location and actually report what is going on to benefit the world’s public knowledge and awareness. The reporter could potentially risk his or her life for the sake of reporting information.

A Filipino reporter named Atom Araullo has become an Internet sensation for being a strong reporter and actually going out in the mist of the typhoon to make live reports. He was beaten up by 379 km/h winds, according to NASA.

The reporter was reporting for ABS-CBN News and is now considered a hero on social media for being the brave reporter to face the storm.

The footage of the storm that Araullo reported live has gone viral on YouTube and has been viewed more than one million times.

Hours after the broadcast, Araullo was trending on Twitter.

The cameraman who recorded Araullo is also being recognized even though there is no information on his identity.

Because one reporter broadcast this information competitive stations also sent reporters to this dangerous natural disaster sight to report.

Jamela Alidogan, who reported live from the storm’s hardest hit city, Tacolban, and shared her horrifying story of how she almost did not survive the storm while reporting about the typhoon.

She told her story about how she went to the second story of a building and hung from the metal ceiling beams in a closet with many others for about an hour to remain safe until the ceiling actually started to give way. The roof eventually collapsed and there was a loud noise. She managed to hide in one of the closet shelves while the eye of the storm was just above her. She was prepared to jump, but decided to wait for help until the water and winds died down.

“I have covered armed conflict, but there is nothing like this, nothing as incredible and scary as covering a natural disaster like Typhoon Haiyan,” Alidogan stated in her report.

Reporters have an extremely important job of supplying news stations and the public with information that in situations like a national disaster is scarce and powerful. Reporters risk their lives to supply this information and it just shows the importance and necessity of the news as a source of information. Just one piece of footage of something this detrimental can summon millions.

For more information visit: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/521290/20131111/typhoon-haiyan-yolanda-philippines-atom-araullo-report.htm and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/al-jazeera-reporter-typhoon-haiyan_n_4255916.html?utm_hp_ref=media

The value of celebrities in news

By MELISSA MALLIN

I often wonder why so many people obsess over celebrities and why famous people generate such high value in today’s news cycles.

I understand why entertainment magazines value celebrities and their gossip as news worthy. It is entertainment and that’s what the magazine is all about — the entertainment industry.

But it seems absurd, (at least to me) that CNN, Fox News, and so many other worldwide news organizations take the time to inform viewers about the lives of celebrities or, at least, contribute to the gossip about them.

So how did entertainment news and gossip become world-wide valued hard-news stories? And why are people more interested in the lives of celebrities than what’s actually going on in the world?

Celebrities represent people who are much prettier, better dressed and much wealthier than the average person. From a young age, we are predisposed to celebrities by watching TV shows and listening to music. We develop an appreciation for these artists and we become obsessed with our favorite people. Because we love our favorite actors or musicians we become eager to learn more about them and what goes on in their lives and less about our own. We focus more on when the next Britney Spears album comes out and less on doing homework and which college we’d eventually like to attend.

When we develop an interest for the characters we watch, and the actors that play them, we become obsessed and want to know everything there is to know about them. Entertainment news and gossip provide insight into the lives of everyone’s favorite celebrities. Many people consider celebrities to be their friends and, thus, want to know more about them. They show that celebrities, too, are normal people just like us who also experience heartache, destruction, and disaster.

The rise of the Internet, the invention of television and radio, as well as a slight decrease in education have all contributed to the role celebrities play in our mainstream news.

Regular news is often boring, negative, depressing and often hard to follow. Most people don’t take the time to follow or keep up with the news because it makes them feel bad. Celebrity news is entertaining, comical, relaxing and makes people feel good knowing that celebrities go through tough times just like we do. Celebrity news gives people a chance to break away from their own lives and into the lives of someone else.

But while entertainment news is interesting and provides a relief from our own everyday lives, when put into perspective, all celebrity gossip and entertainment news has done is dumb our society down by making Miley Cyrus more important and newsworthy than Congress or the president.

It seems outrageous that our news feeds would be filled with news of Kim Kardashian’s due date and Kate Middleton’s baby name than on our continued involvement in the Middle East or the ever-increasing interest rates of college loans and growing student debt.

In the long run, both beauty and fame fade (and it happens fast). By focusing and including celebrity gossip in our mainstream news, we are sending a message to younger generations that nothing matters as long as they’re famous and pretty.

But, as many of us know (at least I hope many of us know). life is not defined by how beautiful or famous we are, it is defined by the impact we make on society and the love we spread.

Being smart and intelligent is much more valuable than being famous and/or beautiful. Beauty and fame are easily disposable. Cultural significance and positive change last longer and are much more respected.

With this, I propose a change in celebrity gossip and the value they hold in our news. If the news reported on how political policy affected those in the social elite rather than just their physical appearance and wardrobe, then their coverage would be legitimately solidified. We live in a society that holds physical appearance as the only important value; if we are not beautiful or skinny, then we are not important. We need to re-evaluate and re-focus news on the things that matter — such as education.

Sure, the news holds negative and depressing stories, but that’s because our world is filled with such things. We are only hurting ourselves and our value of intelligence by dumbing ourselves down and distracting ourselves with the lives of celebrities instead of trying to improve our own.

For more please visit http://askville.amazon.com/people-interested-lives-celebrities/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4760919 http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/opinion/coverage-of-celebrities-should-not-overpower-newsworthy-reporting-1.2830619#.Un6kHhaRTCEt

Conspiracy theories and the media

By MELISSA MALLIN

Recently, conspiracy theories have become very popular.

A conspiracy theory can be thought of as the belief that authorities and government officials are responsible for some type of (destructive) unexplained event and that the official explanation or story cannot be trusted. Often, those who believe in one conspiracy tend to believe in others.

Those who believe in conspiracy theories are often characterized as irrational, unbelievable, and/or all around nuts. An intelligent, very well-liked person with credibility can quickly and easily become irrational, disliked, and lose their credibility just by being labeled a conspirator in mainstream media.

The easiest way for officials and the media to brush something off is by labeling it a conspiracy theory. When conspiracy theories do arise, officials and media outlets are extremely quick to dismiss certain types of views, point fingers, and label anyone who believes in this “outrageous idea” a conspiracy theorist.

Back in the day, the mainstream media served as a watchdog for government, exposing and uncovering hidden secrets (Think Nixon and the Watergate scandal). To many people today, it appears though, that the mainstream media only tell us what the government and big corporations want us to hear. Most people consider the media to be the biggest conspiracy of all, lying to society about what’s really going on overseas and/or in our own backyard.

So if we can’t trust our very own news media for answers or to further investigate questionable scandals then who can we trust? Many people turn to conspiracy theories for answers because it appears that those conspiracies provide answers to many of the questions the mainstream media often avoids.

Many conspiracy theories hold some value of truth but more often then not they hold an extremist viewpoint and can be considered false. But what happens when these conspiracy theories turn out to be true? As we know, the media tends to get a lot of things wrong and blur questionable facts. When the mainstream media labels something a conspiracy theory and then later, it turns out to be true, does this further discredit our very own media and give more credibility to conspiracy theories? Let’s take a look.

Remember Fukushima, the nuclear power plant that erupted in Japan? Back when it happened, the mainstream media coverage insisted that the nuclear radiation was nothing like Chernobyl and that many residents could soon return to their homes. Overall, the media declared Fukushima ‘no big deal.’ Many “conspiracy theorists” called this one — declaring Fukushima uninhabitable due to nuclear radiation. As it turns out, a few months later The New York Times released an article in which “broad areas around the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades ….”

How about the U.S military attacks on Libya? At the beginning, those who saw this coming and spoke up about it were called kooks and whack-jobs. (The majority of Americans never saw this coming) Even recently, the mainstream media still denies that NATO is currently arming and training Libyan rebels. In order to be less responsible for the bloodshed and still achieve their goals, the U.S and EU have developed, trained, and equipped “rebel groups” within the country and have used them as the ground forces for this campaign. The New York Times admits ” the learning curve for the rebels, with training and equipping, was increasing. What we’ve seen in the last few weeks is these two curves have crossed.” Now, many prominent officials are already calling for the U.S and EU to provide occupational forces.

How about the popular conspiracy that the increasing amounts of fluoride in our water is actually bad for us? For the first time in 50 years, the feds have just now reduced the “recommended amount” of fluoride in our drinking water. A CNN article reported that the federal government is now saying that high levels of fluoride in the water have now officially been linked with fluorosis-a condition that causes spotting and streaking on teeth.

How about the idea that cell phone use can cause cancer? Startling scientific research has now found a connection between the two. A recent CNN article states, “At the highest exposure level — using a mobile phone half an hour a day over a 10-year period — the study found a 40 percent increased risk of glioma brain tumors.”

This last example involves the conspiracy that the U.S government provides weapons for Mexican drug cartels. This idea has been around for a long time, yet nobody has taken the time to listen to or investigate the theory. Now, it is a matter of public record. The government has, indeed, facilitated the transfer of thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

A CBS News report discusses the opposition that many ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) agents admitted to allowing thousands of guns to be given into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. “One Project Gunrunner source told us just how many guns flooded the black market under ATF’s watchful eye …. For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go.”

It’s hard to determine whether these are just common mainstream media mistakes or if the media actually hides the truth for as long as they can until the government (or unavoidable research and explanation) allows them to admit such truths.

The mainstream news media never hesitates to label an absurd theory as a conspiracy-and those who believe in it-as conspirators. The label alone is enough to discredit anyone-no matter how smart, intelligent and credible they really are. But these examples have shown that conspiracy theorists have often times been correct, even if the media has not admitted or accepted these theories right away.

So does this mean we should discredit the mainstream media and credit conspiracy theories instead?

Not necessarily.

All I’m suggesting is that the mainstream news media seem to be quick in labeling theories that discredit the government as conspiracies. By doing this, the majority of people discredit these theories and sometimes these theories turn out to be true. Of course, not all conspiracy theories are true and, quite often, most of them are absurd. But the fact remains, that there seems to be some layer of truth in conspiracies that arise and instead of discrediting them because the mainstream media has told us too, we should further investigate and come up with our own conclusions.

As these examples have shown, when the media is quick to disbelieve and discredit someone as a conspiracy/conspirator, it is in our best interest that we do our own investigating for the truth.

For more on conspiracy theories and the media please visit http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-conspiracy-theories-that-the-media-now-admits-are-conspiracy-facts

Journalism isn’t dying, it’s changing

By MELANIE MARTINEZ

Every holiday party or family get-together, it’s always the same thing. My relatives and their friends ask about boys and school. While my love life has fluctuated more than Oprah’s waistline (no offense, O) my college career has always been steady and focused. When asked about my major, I proudly reply, “Journalism,” which is always met with faces twisted in horror and concern.

“But honey, journalism is a dying career! Everybody knows that.”

Cue my usual exasperated sigh and excuse to beeline towards the snack table. I can feel their worried glances on my back. Poor thing. She needs to study a real major. 

I know my Com School peers have experienced similar fright-filled responses. But do not fret my fellow journalism majors, as I’m sure you know, there is no need to switch over to something “more reliable” like engineering or accounting … we all suck at math anyways.

It is true that the journalism industry is currently going through major changes, but that doesn’t mean that it’s dying out and that reporters are going extinct.

On the contrary, BLS data shows that the number of help-wanted ads for “news analysts, reporters, and correspondents” has increased by 15 percent compared to last year. More people are telling BLS that they have careers as news analysts, reporters and correspondents compared to a year ago.

The Digital Age isn’t taking away journalism jobs, instead it’s simply modifying the description. These help-wanted ads now use words such as “digital,” “Internet” and “mobile.”

And what’s wrong with that? This isn’t the first time journalism and media have withstood major change due to technology. From the emergence of the radio in the twenties to the television takeover in the fifties, journalists have adapted when it comes to times of major change through medium.

As history shows, when technology advances and culture changes, journalists develop new skills to keep up. Journalism hasn’t died out and won’t die out because of this willingness to understand, adapt and learn.

The common idea that “everyone’s a journalist,” due to the prevalence of blogging online, is an inaccurate notion. The news and media industry needs educated journalists capable of interpreting the news and delivering it in the unique way only trained writers and broadcasters can. That’s not to say that raw talent is non-existent, but not everyone has the needed skill set acquired through education.

I believe that journalism will continue to strive in this Internet-centered period due to the fact that young journalists are capable and equipped to handle the shift. They lack the dated habits of their older counterparts and join the industry with a strong grasp of today’s environment.

Instead of collapsing careers, journalism’s changing ways are creating more jobs and opportunities, available to the people who are skilled and opened to them.

So maybe our world is studded with tablets and phones and our eyes are more constantly met with screens than with paper. We will always need people to report and interpret life’s happenings, no matter the outlet. From town crier to Tweet and everything in between, journalism has evolved along with the world and will continue to do so in the ever-changing future.

How do blogs affect news?

By REBECCA COHEN

For starters, bloggers are the lucky ones. They have a lower standard to uphold and can therefore speak freely, with bias, opinion and all of the forbidden aspects of news writing.

Bloggers can speak without regard, because they have no boss. Their only standards to uphold are their own.

In journalism, it is frowned upon to use your boyfriend, best friend or cousin as a credible source; however, bloggers are free to use all three of these people – making their information easier to attain.

Although bloggers have the easier job, their work complies with news writing with a funny cycle.

If a person’s social media news feed is fluttered with their friend’s opinions on a certain topic, this will encourage users to want to know the facts. Fortunately, when people want the facts, they refrain from blogs and turn to the news.

If these users are equally as inspired as their Facebook friends were by a certain topic, they may take to sharing their opinions as well – thus continuing the cycle of blog-inspired news readings.

However, because blogs can be more entertaining than hard news, it becomes a struggle for news sites to compete. With the need for pictures, videos, colorful sites and interactive features, online news sites are compelled to comply with their new competition: the bloggers.

This competitive edge has led to website design, live news feeds, use of color, trends and advertisements on online news sites. News sites also broadcast on social media in order to compete with bloggers by featuring “share” buttons at the beginning or end of each online story.

Additionally, the interactive features on news stories have dramatically increased since social media has taken off. The incorporation of user comments, user photos, and overall user input allow online news sites to stay in the running against bloggers.

So, a little competition has pushed online news to new heights. And, no matter how much easier or controversial a blog story may be, no body of writing can replace the facts and credibility that is the news.

Videos as web stories: Where is the text?

By MARISSA YOUNG

The Internet is great for news because we can use it to tell stories in multiple forms, like both text and video.  Video can complement and enhance text stories, adding new information and content.  However, a problem I have been running into lately is having online stories that are only in video form.

For example, on CNN’s website, there are many news stories that are only video.  Granted, you can find the corresponding text version elsewhere on the site, but how hard would it be for CNN to pair the two together on the same webpage?

On my Facebook News Feed, people post human-interest stories that catch my attention, but to my dismay, often the stories have no text to accompany videos.  This is especially problematic when I am in a public setting, like a classroom (before class, not during…), and I am unable to watch or listen.

Sometimes, it is just an inconvenience and I can easily perform a Google search and find a text version of the story. This is generally the case with straight news stories.  It’s harder when the stories are not straight news, because these are the more unique stories that cannot be found on every news website’s homepage.

Often, I don’t have the time or patience to watch a video.  I’d rather have the story in front of me, where I can scan it and quickly get important details out of it.  With videos, it is difficult to locate the important details, and when you try to skip around, it usually ends up taking longer to watch with all the buffering and/or freezing that ensues.  Plus, videos generally require you to watch ads before the story, which is beneficial for the host site’s pockets, but is not in the interest of saving time.

Because it can be so complicated and frustrating to play videos, I usually don’t watch them at all.

Even though there are undoubtedly Internet users who prefer stories as videos, I think having a story only in video format can be detrimental to a story’s success.  Having a news story only in video format will lead viewers to other websites.

And the last thing a journalist wants is to lose readers to another similar story.

Media can inspire relationships

By DANIELLE COHEN

Back in 2012, a woman by the name of Elizabeth Wisdom posted a picture of Crater Lake in Oregon on her Instagram page.

This picture received 221 “likes” and various different comments. One of the comments which said “gasping I miss this place” was made by a man Elizabeth had never met. Because of their common interest in the lake and the public aspect of Instragram they decided to exchange phone numbers to chat.

Elizabeth decided she wanted to meet this man Denis face-to-face so she flew out to New Orleans to meet him. She Instragrammed a picture of Denis when she met him to document their weekend spent together.

From their comments back and fourth, it seemed that they were attracted to each ohter. As their relationship progressed Denis Instragrammed a picture of Elizabeth to document when they started to date.

Nine months later, Denis took Elizabeth to a barn near her home in Texas where she always dreamed of having her wedding. There he proposed to her in front of a “timeline” of their Instagram dating life which he printed out and put on the wall of the barn. The two are currently organizing their wedding.

It is amazing how social media networks can bring people together. People can post messages and images that others can relate to which in situations like this bring similar people together. If it wasn’t for Elizabeth’s hashtag on her Instagram about the Crater Lake, Denis would have never found Elizabeth.

I find this situation to be a rare occurrence because many people who meet on the Internet or on social media are taking a huge risk of the dangers behind their relationship. They have to take the chance of the possibility of talking to someone they don’t think they are talking to and sometimes maybe even a criminal or pedophile.

The movie and show “Catfish” is a prime example of this new relationship era. The show documents cyber relationships with the intentions of  bringing the two individuals together in person to see if the person they have been speaking too is actually the person that they thought.

Most of the time, the person is someone who lied about their identity. People who use media networks to “date” need to be extremely careful of all the dangerous people in the world today.

This dating is potentially dangerous and emotionally heartbreaking if you are talking to someone who lied about their identity.

It creates a world of people who do not know how to talk face to face. It creates a virtual world where people don’t interact in person and it is like love is evolving into a video game where they speak through typing.

Media networks bring people together in a sense, but essentially bring people physically apart due to lack of face-to-face connections.

For more information on Elizabeth and Denis: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/this-couple-met-fell-in-love-started-dating-and-got-engaged.

Social media can sway opinions

By DANIELLE COHEN

Two black customers at the high-end department store Barney’s in New York City claimed to be subjects of racial profiling by the store’s employees.

According to the Huffington Post, Barney’s has been criticized for profiling African-American customers. Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillip were separate victims who recently have been examples of Barney’s profiling instances.

Christian sued Barneys after he was accused of fraud after spending money at Barney’s when he bought a Ferragamo belt in April.

Phillips filed a notice that she will sue after detectives stopped her outside of Barney’s after she made a high-end purchase of a Celine bag in February.

The CEO of Barneys, Mark Lee, apologized and claimed they have hired a civil rights expert to address the situation.

This situation is not only hurtful to Christian and Phillips and the people who could relate to this situation, but it is hurting Jay-Z and his fashion collaboration.

Jay-Z, who grew up in a life of crime in Brooklyn, is now an international star and rapper. He is very aware of civil rights. He is thoughtful and thinks about his  labels and if they would be considered racist.

He also stood up and spoke about the killing of Trayvon Marton, a black teenager who was killed because he was mistaken to be dangerous just because of his race.

Jay-Z is currently in the processes of collaborating with Barney’s to create a jewelry line and clothing line for the holidays in which he would not profit in anyway. Twenty-five percent of the total profit is planning to benefit economically challenged students to help them pursue an education.

There has been discussion in the news and social media because many of his fans believe that he should not continue his collaboration with Barney’s because of their racial profiling.

Saturday, Jay-Z announced that he had been “demonized” over his new collaboration and has been under pressure from all ends of social media to end his involvement with Barneys.

There have been Twitter remarks made to Jay-Z about this situation.

An online petition was even made to convince Jay-Z to drop his partnership with Barneys. This petition spread all over social media. This petition has received 13,670 signatures.

On top of all the social media recognition about this heated petition, people have been criticizing Jay-Z for not speaking publicly about his thoughts on the issue. This has even landed him on the cover of the New York Daily News.

Yesterday, Jay-Z spoke out. He stated, “I haven’t made any comments because I am waiting on facts and the outcome of a meeting between community leaders and Barneys.”

Because Jay-Z has such fame and such a large following, any news about him could and most definitely will cause a social media uproar with people sharing their opinions. If the news was not as established as it is today, people would be unable to retrieve all the information and they wouldn’t have the capability to share their opinions within social media networks. They also would not have been able to gather so many names on a petition.

In my opinion, social media are great for advertisers and for sharing news within seconds, but they also allow for a platform of negative opinions to be shared, petitions to be made, and people’s lives and reputations to be tainted.

After understanding what Jay-Z is going through, I began to think about how peoples lives would be changed drastically if social media did not exist because people would make more of their own decisions.

Social media is essentially creating a persuasive stream of comments that are unnecessary and that just simply complicate people’s lives.

There is news being created that is simply stemming from what people say on social media. If social media was eliminated this whole era of news would be eliminated.