Chapter Eight

1.     What kinds of stories, topics, or issues are not being covered well by mainstream papers?

Positive humanitarian issues are generally not covered well by mainstream newspapers because those types of stories don’t sell.  It’s true that you see occasionally stories about a Good Samaritan or someone who was down on their luck hitting the lottery, but for the most part, mainstream newspapers focus their content on global affairs (which are typically topics of war, poverty and economics), political issues and the wrongdoings of others (crimes, murders, etc).  Unfortunately, the general public rarely seeks after stories about positive issues because they are inundated with negative news stories throughout their day. With a war going on and the economy in shambles, readers want to know the state of affairs when they read their news, not about a woman who saves a kitten from running out in traffic. Readers also want to hear about murder trials and criminal offenses because they enjoy seeing justice served or sought after. That seems to be one of the few ways to provide readers with a sense of pleasure and education.

2.     Discuss whether newspaper chains are ultimately good or bad for the future of journalism.

I believe newspaper chains are ultimately bad for the future of journalism. In my own personal opinion, newspaper chains are recipes for disaster as they create the opportunity for one company to own and operate hundreds of newspapers, all with the same bias. For instance, a conservative company could own 200 newspapers and all may have a conservative bias. Readers may pick up three different newspapers and read an article on the 2012 presidential election thinking they are receiving three different opinions when in reality, they’re receiving the same conservative bias from all three news sources. This tarnishes the credibility of journalists because it makes the business look shady. When you stick to independently owned and operated newspapers, it makes readers feel as though they are growing and trusting in personal news source, rather than a mechanical and manufactured company.

3.     Will blogs and other Internet news services eventually replace newspapers? Explain your response.

I think this is a hard question to answer, but I would have to say that I do think blogs and other Internet sources will eventually replace newspapers. Since the invention of the Internet, society has worked to put everything into digital form. From movies, music, books and even university courses, everything has found a place in the digital world. Print media is no exception. Today we find textbooks, phone books, menus, and directories and even printed yearbooks becoming obsolete. Why would newspapers be any different? Magazine companies are halting their print right and left, all gravitating towards their websites to supply news and entertainment. I don’t think newspapers are any different. As the current generation of college students age into senior citizens, I think the Internet will then be dominating every demographic when it comes to offering news as well as entertainment and communication.

Chapter Seven

1.Do you remember seeing a movie you were not allowed to see? Discuss the experience.

            When Titanic first came out there was such a buzz about the sex scene between Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. It was also being hailed as one of the greatest movies made at the time. I wanted to see it really badly so I talked my older cousin into taking me. We fabricated this story about going to see The Parent Trap and to dinner, but we really went to see Titanic. I was really young but I loved it. I don’t really remember the scandalous feeling of seeing a movie with such inappropriate content because looking back I feel it was done in good taste.  I think I felt so grown up seeing an “adult” movie.  I also think that the media was responsible for all the hype that surrounded the movie in the first place. I was too young to really understand the historical background of the film and was more concerned with pushing the boundaries.

2.How often do you go to the movie theaters today? How often do you play DVDs on a television at home, or watch movies on a computer? Which experience do you prefer and why?

            I don’t go to the movie theaters often at all. I’ve made plans to go to the movies Friday night but that will be the first time in months. I play DVDs at home a few times a month but I mainly stick to Netflix and watching movies on my computer at home.  I prefer to do this because it is much cheaper and I can be more comfortable at home than I can in a theater and I have a way bigger selection. I can afford to watch more than one when I do it from home, where going to the theater is causing me to spend at least $9 on a ticket and more for food and drinks. When you do this on a college budget, it’s hard to repeat this experience more than once every few months or weeks.

3. If you were a Hollywood film producer or executive, what kinds of films would you like to see made? What changes would you make in what we see at the movies?

            I would love to see more films about happy and positive events, rather than the doom and gloom that seem to dominate the movies today. To find a happy movie that doesn’t include lots of sex, drugs, violence and cursing leaves you with seeing children’s films. I would probably do more to eliminate the suggestive appearance of women and the negative stereotypes of different groups of people rather than continue on with what has been happening. I would have to work hard to appeal to the masses, but I think it would be worth it to bring a bit of light into what is becoming and increasingly dark society.

Chapter Six

1. Do you think the must-carry rules violate a cable company's First Amendment rights? Why or why not?
I don't believe this violates the First Amendment at all. To begin with, a cable company is not a person in itself. I think that because the cable company submits to the FCC and relies on the FCC for permission to continue their business, they have no real right to complain about the must-carry rule. I think that the must-carry rule is actually a way to guarantee the First Amendment rights to everyone, not just those with the most power. With the must-carry rule, not only does the cable company have the right to put whatever they want on the majority of their networks, but local agencies have the right to a few networks in order to have their own voices heard without having to fight larger companies. Local networks would never have a prayer when it comes to fighting for the rights of channels if they were constantly up against stations such as MTV or CNN. However, with a few allocated stations, everyone benefits from the First Amendment.

2. CNN and MTV have changed our society as well as global culture. Have these changes been positive or negative? Explain.
I think it could be argued that CNN and MTV have changed society and altered our global culture for the worse because I think that many of the stereotypes and sexist ideals are enforced through these types of media outlets on a regular basis. However, as a whole, I think that these two networks along with many others have positively changed our society and global culture more than it has negatively. For one thing, both of these networks inform viewers on news, entertainment and current events. Informing viewers is a positive thing that leads to more educated viewers. Another thing about these networks is that they both appeal to young viewers. When many news stations gear themselves towards adults and older generations, it's refreshing to see two networks that appeal to younger crowds and engage them in events that matter. While entertainment is an obvious main point, especially when it comes to MTV, they integrate popular culture with news in a way that makes the station both diverse and easily attractive to younger demographics.

3. Some critics argue that citizens no longer participate in traditional neighborhood activities and that cable has played a role in fragmenting society, keeping us in our homes. Do you agree or disagree? What has cable done well, and in what ways has it adversely affected society? 
Cable has obviously distracted our society from going outside of our homes because now our society has another option for entertainment. Before cable, we were limited with things to do. Yes, radio was captivating but it wasn't nearly as indulgent as sitting in front of the TV and getting lost in the pictures. Kids especially wanted to go play with their friends outside, adults had barbecues and card nights. It was a society that depended on one another for entertainment that now has no reason to rely on the company of others. With the flip of a switch, cable connects us to the world and keeps us occupied and keeps us on the couch. Cable has done many things well, however. We're a more informed society because of the news and educational cable shows, and we're also well rounded because cable allows us to experience different channels devoted to different parts of our culture (cooking, dancing, history, etc.).  Cable has also inundated our society with programs that promote sexual promiscuity, sexism, drug use, and other negative things that are glorified on the small screen.  Cable has made what was once unacceptable, acceptable and has disengaged our society from real life. The positives have always triumphed the negatives when it comes to cable, however, leaving it successful and flourishing.

Chapter Five

1. How many cable channels do you watch regularly? What programs do you watch? What attracts you to a certain channel?

Growing up, I was a very fortunate kid. I had a television in my room when I was very young and was always allowed to watch TV very freely. I think that this caused me to become slightly immune to the hype of television as I got older, however, because now I rarely find myself sitting down to watch TV. On the occasion that I do sit down and watch, I don't have a specific channel that I'll immediately turn to. I might check out what's on the basic channels like CBS or ABC, and then I might see what's on CNN. Other than that, I'll just flip through until something catches my attention. I don't follow any specific show every week or every day, although I've seen and have enjoyed How I Met Your Mother, CSI, Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, AC360, and late night talk shows like Letterman. I'm attracted to stations and shows that can bring me the news, make me laugh, hold my attention and don't keep me waiting for what I want to see. Television shows like Lost would have only made me angry because I don't really like cliff hangers and I try not to get too invested in the plot of a TV show, which seemed to happen to many Lost fans.


2. If you controlled a cable public-access channel in your community, what would be your channel's goal? What could we do to make public-, or government-, or educational-access programming more appealing? Should we?

If I controlled my own cable public-access channel, I would probably focus on educating the community about the ways that technology will not only enhance our lives but also stimulate our economy and make us a competitive city that we once were, just like when furniture was our biggest export. Social media, social networking and the development and production of mass media merchandise have the potential to really move this area out of economic hardship and into profitable business. I think that the ways we could make public-, or government-, or educational-access programming more appealing would be to make the programs more visually appealing by including better graphics and set material in each program. I would also try to get current music to be played and for recognizable faces to appear on the station so that viewers could better relate. And I also think that it is very important for viewers to find our channel appealing because the goal of a channel being created is for people to watch it. If viewers can't stand to watch our channel, there won't be a purpose in having it anymore.

3. How could television be used to improve social and political life in the United States?

I think the simplest answer to this question is to say that television can be used to improve social and political life in the United States by informing our citizens. Television is such a popular form of mass media; almost everyone either has one or has access to one daily. It can be used for both good and bad, but either way you see it, it's still informative. By delivering the news to citizens, they can be better equipped to understand what's going on in politics as well as current events that will enhance their ability to function in society. The television provides people with the chance to have their voices heard and offers the chance for the public to understand several sides to the same story. Not only does it provide news but it also provides entertainment and information on a variety of topics not politically related that interest the viewer and make it possible for them to interact with others socially, while having an informed opinion on a broad area of topics. This makes for well rounded individuals and a more diverse population.