As I’m sure most of you know, the NFL Playoffs are well underway and there has been quite a bit of excitement already in the first couple of weeks. Tim Tebow’s divinity finally left him this season when Tom Brady and the Pats thrashed the Broncos, the 49ers seem to be a legit contender for the first time in nearly a decade, the Giants are the underdog that’s on fire, and Baltimore is a team that continues to win with defense. With the conference championship games set, we will truly see if it is offense or defense that wins championships. If anyone reads this, let me know your predictions and feel free to suggest a topic for the next post. 

In this episode, Britney Spears and her image are essentially made fun of constantly, and that is pretty much how the show is in general. They are constantly poking fun at celebrities. But I felt that this episode was particularly interesting because they happened to pick Britney Spears who seems to always be a part of celebrity news. She is always a part of the tabloid papers and the story may talk about who she was seen with or there may be claims that she is pregnant again. This episode of “South Park” basically claimed that the media and the world population build up a celebrity such as Britney, and then bring them crashing down and sacrifice them.

I felt that this was so interesting because I do not think Britney Spears needs to be picked on anymore than she already has. I still think the show is hilarious, but taking more shots at Britney Spears is harsh in my opinion. She seems to be the butt of every joke everywhere you turn and it does not offend me at all, but I think it shows how little respect the media and the world has for Britney Spears. I feel that things are this way for almost all celebrities as well. As soon as they make one life mistake, the media loses all respect for them and they become fresh meat for new jokes and new entertainment for the population. It is a very interesting cycle and I think it could possibly put some unwanted pressure on celebrities to be perfect. However, I believe that most of the time these celebrities give permission to the television shows to make fun of them. I definitely think that there would be quite a few lawsuits if these people did not have permission to make these celbrities look like fools in front of America. I believe that the media have many different views and I think these views help shape the views of the population of the world.

References:

Parker, Trey (Writer & Director). (2008). Britney’s New Look. McCulloch, Kyle (Producer), “South Park.” Comedy Central.

Some people believe that the length of a copyright should be shortened while others believe that the length should stay where it’s at.  I sort of stand in the middle ground of the two sides.  I believe that the length should be reduced to a just a lifetime.  I feel that the extra seventy years needs to be forgotten about because I feel that there is not a need for it.  I do not think that the original creator of something needs to hold the rights of their creation after they are dead.  I think that is when it is time to let someone else benefit from what you have created.  I mean who needs to keep making money seventy years after they are dead?  What use would it have?  You wouldn’t be able to use it or anything.  So again, I feel that the copyright length should be reduced to a lifetime and the seventy years should be dropped.

However, I can definitely understand the positions at both ends of the spectrum on the whole situation.  Some people that the extra seventy years is necessary because perhaps the person who dies after their lifetime has ended has a family and they want their family to be supported for as long as possible.  On the other hand, I can also understand why some people want the copyright length to be shortened significantly.  Perhaps some people want to build off of a current idea and benefit from it but they can’t do that because it would violate the copyright laws.

Both sides have very good reasons as to why the copyright length should be shortened or should be kept the same and as I stated before, I stand in the middle ground.  I’m not sure if there will be any changes in the length in the near future but i’m sure there is a possibility of a change being made at some point. Only time will tell.

I felt that the coverage was certainly sensationalized.  However, I felt that there was definitely a good reason for it to be sensationalized.  Scientists are constantly trying to find new ways to do things and new ways to cure things.  When even the slightest breakthrough comes along, it is always very exciting to hear about.  For example, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals tested RNA interference on monkeys and bad cholesterol levels were lowered by sixty percent.  The most fascinating thing that was discovered by scientists was that this RNA interference has an ability to knock out disease-causing genes.  Those are just a couple examples from the article but it brings me back to my point about how this article certainly has a right be sensationalized.

I believe that the sources that were quoted in this article are definitely credible.  I believe this because all of the sources seemed to come from very well known people and institutions in the science world.  There were also no ellipses in the quotations which indicated that the reporter gave the readers the whole quote and he did not piece two parts of it together to make the statement seem better or worse.  I really admire when I reporter who gives all the information.

I felt that this reporter did an excellent job on this story mainly because he showed both point of views on the topic.  He showed which people supported this RNA interference and he quoted people who felt a little skeptical about the whole thing.

If I was an online reporter such as Mr. Pollack, I would definitely feel pressure to do things such as sensationalize a story.  However, if I was writing about a story such as the one Mr. Pollack wrote, or something like a cure was discovered for the common cold I would certainly sensationalize that because I would feel like it was a very important topic and audiences should know about it.

To conclude, science is making some incredible breakthroughs and I feel that Mr. Pollack did a great job of explaining what this particular breakthrough could mean to the world.

This branded community is hilarious to say the least.  It is promoting milk.  White Gold (milk) is viewed as the greatest rock band ever created on this site.  This band consists of three people, two female model like characters known as the “Calcium Twins” and one male rock star.  It is absolutely ridiculous and also hilarious.  The site is extremely deep which, in my opinion, makes the whole thing even funnier.  There are so many things to do and so many little games to play, I ended up spending over an hour on the site.

The site was extremely engaging to me.  Its humor is what lured me in and kept me on the site for a long period of time.  As I stated before, the site is very deep with loads of content.  I could have spend twice as much time as I did on it.  All of it put together was basically saying that everyone should drink milk because it is good for you and it makes you strong.  You can even get the music that is heard on the site.  There were also Mypace, Facebook, and YouTube pages for this site.

As engaging as the site was, I definitely did not find myself wanting to drink milk afterwards.  The site is hysterical, but I’m pretty sure that by drinking milk I will not instantly turn into the greatest rock star ever.  What the site really did was make me think of who thought up the idea to make a site like this and if he or she is a comedian.  I would love to see what other things this person has created.  In my opinion, I do not feel that this site will make people want to drink milk more often, but for all I know it could.  I think this idea would be more effective as a television advertisement but I suppose it was made a branded community for a reason.  This site is just one example of the many branded communities out there.  I have only come across a couple of them but I thought that they were very funny.  I highly recommend exploring branded communities.  You might find something a lot more fun and hilarious than I have!

I personally believe that the effects these video games have really just depends on the person that plays them.  Some people are more effected by it than others.  I agreed and disagreed with the three journals that I read.  There were some points that I felt were correct in my opinion, and there were other points that I felt were incorrect.

According to Stacey L. Smith, Ken Lachlan, and Ron Tamborini (2003), there is recent evidence that suggests a positive relationship to violent video games and aggressive tendencies in people.  Aggressive tendencies were shown particularly in males who were characteristically aggressive and preferred violent video games over and others.  According to James D. Ivory and Sriram Kalyanaraman (2007), some scholars believe that there is enough evidence to link violent video games to real-life aggression, and others believe that there isn’t a sufficient amount of evidence to make that conclusion.  Also, Rene’ Weber, Ute Ritterfield, and Klaus Mathiak (2006) found that some scholars say that any sort of violence in video games, no matter how moderate, can pose a risk for negative effects and future aggression in people.

As I stated before, I personally believe that the impact that these effects have on people who play violent video games really just depends on the person.  As a violent video game player myself, I understand that it is just a game and I am not going to start shooting up places or anything like that.  I have plenty of friends who play violent video games as well and they have not shown any more aggression than they have in the past.  I think some people just take video games too far and perceive it as reality.  I think that is where a parent’s role comes in.  I feel that they should monitor these things closer to prevent some potential violent events from happening.  Overall, I feel that there is just not enough evidence to make a strong case saying that violence in video games causes violence in real life.  The results of the studies that have been taken just vary way too much to get a definite answer about any questions that are out there.  I think these problems will eventually go away because of the advancements in technology and video games.  There will eventually be some form of virtual reality so if anyone feels the urge to go on a killing spree they can do it in the comfort of their own home.

References:

Smith, Stacy L. (2003).  Popular Video Games: Quantifying the Presentation of Violence and Its Context. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media; Mar2003, Vol. 47 Issue 1, p58, 19p, 3 charts

Ivory, James D., Kalyanaraman, Sriram (2007).  The Effects of Technological Advancement and Violent Content in Video Games on Players’ Feelings of Presence, Involvement, Physiological Arousal, and Aggression. Journal of Communication; Sep2007, Vol. 57 Issue 3, p532-555, 24p, 1 chart

Weber, René, Ritterfeld, Ute, Mathiak, Klaus (2006).  Does Playing Violent Video Games Induce Aggression? Empirical Evidence of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Media Psychology; 2006, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p39-60, 22p, 4 graphs

For starters, I noticed that the alternative media source ended in “.org” instead of “.com”.  This tells me that the alternative media sources are not out to make a profit, they’re out to make a change.  In comparison to the stories I read, I believe that I agree a lot more with how the alternative media source does things.  Both sources cover world events, but there is more focus on United States events because of the current presidential election.  The stories from CNN were a little more exciting in my opinion.  However, I think that is because not all of it was the truth.  It seemed a lot more dramatic than it was perhaps.  The interviews conducted were mostly with experts.  They would occasionally interview a regular person but it didn’t happen that often.  There was almost no time for opinion, which seemed sad.  The people do not really get to express how they feel about a certain topic or story.  And even if they do, it seems like no one is listening.  That is really just my perception of things and my opinion though.  I did not see a way to change the language on the CNN website.  So it seems that there is sort of a barrier in that category unless I completely missed something.

For the Democracy Now! website on the other hand, I noticed a lot of positive things but also some negative things.  I really like what they stand for.  They are all about finding the truth and finding the facts about each story.  Since Democracy Now! is a radio and TV show, the stories were more like headlines on the website.  But you can watch the show on the website which I thought was nice.  With it being a radio show, there isn’t a reporter that really goes out and interviews people.  The people come to the studio to get interviewed.  But I really like how listeners are able to call in and express their opinions freely.  I believe that the price you have to pay for a show like this with solid facts and the truth, is the lack of drama and excitement you would find on CNN.  I think it is harder to keep entertained because no one is really looking to stir the pot.  People just want the truth.  But I believe that that is a positive thing.

Radio Station

I read four articles over the past three past three days about the election and the candidates.  In two of these articles, I did not see a real clear cut role that the media was taking.  However, in the other two articles it was very clear what role they were taking.  In one of those articles they demonstrated the “press as a custodian of fact” role, and in the other they showed the “press as a storyteller” role.  In the article where the press takes on the role of “press as a storyteller” there some, but not much analysis of facts.  The reporter just discussed about a feud between Senator McCain and the organization known as Acorn.  Some facts about Acorn were thrown into the mix but I felt that there was little focus on the facts and it was more about the feud.  On the other hand, in the article where the press takes on the role of “press as a custodian of fact”, I felt that there was a lot of facts and fact analysis.  I felt that the reporter did a good job of stating facts about the election and explaining every detail.

The most important role for journalists to fulfill is the “press as custodian of fact” role.  In this role, as described by Kathleen Jamieson and Paul Waldman, reporters should help the public make sense of the election and what is going on in it by explaining terms, providing needed information, informing the public about misleading and false statements, and connecting politicians’ policies with likely effects.

The “custodian of fact” role is the most important role for the media to play because it is the role that tells the honest truth about what is going on.  It is important to me, as someone who follows the election, that reporters do not focus on horserace politics.  I want all of the facts and as much analysis as possible so I can understand everything.

Provided by http://www.sxc.hu/index.phtml

As I stated before, I am a freshman this year at the University of Oregon.  I am a business major and I am hoping to work my way into the sports business world after I graduate.  I plan on minoring in communications because I think having experience in that field could be invaluable to me in the future.  I think this mass media & society class is a very good starting point for that.  I am a sports fanatic to say the least.  My favorite sport is ultimately basketball and a few of my favorite sports teams are the Portland Trailblazers, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Oakland A’s.  Those three teams might not be very good right now, but they are all on the rise!  I am hoping to be involved with one of those organizations after I graduate.  Unfortunately, that is still a long way off.  But I am very excited to begin my scholastic career here at the U of O and I have no doubt that I will recieve the best teaching anyone could ask for.  I certainly hope college doesn’t go by as fast as high school because I want to have the time to enjoy every minute I spend here.  I hope you enjoy my blog!