Media Chatter

Movie ratings are operated by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The rating of a movie is determined by the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA). This is comprised of parents that view films and then give them a rating depending on how they think the movie should be rated. The parents try to watch a movie and judge it by the themes, the language, nudity, drug use etc. After a movie has been viewed the administration meets and votes on a rating. The ratings are, G which is for general audiences, PG for parental guidance, PG-13 is a more serious parental warning, R which is not for children under 17 years of age with out an adult, and NC-17 which is for no one under the age of 17 regardless. This is how our movies today are giving the ratings they have.

The ratings of movies are being loosely giving out now. Movies that are PG-13 today have material that R movies had 10 years ago. The parents that rate movies now are more lenient with the movies today than in the past. A good example is “Four Christmases” starring Vince Vaughn, Reese Witherspoon, and Robert Duvall. “Four Christmases” is rated PG-13 but has intense sexual innuendos and strong language. If I was a parent I would definitely not let my child watch PG-13 movies today without watching them first myself. This is what a PG-13 movie is defined as by the MPAA.

A PG-13 rating stands for Parents Strongly Cautioned. This type of movie is generally not suitable for kids under the age of 13. Some kids over the age of 13 may not do well with these movies as well. These will contain some adult material and situations, including bad language, brief nudity, sexual references or overtones, and could also contain some drug usage or moderate violence. Some popular PG-13 movies include some of the Harry Potter movies, as well as some of the Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean movies. If your tween is asking to see one of these movies, then cautioned should be used.

Parenting styles are different with each family. Some parents just look at the rating to see if their 13 year old kid can see it and if their old enough to watch it they let them. Parents need to be more cautious of what they let their children watch. The movies that kids watch really affect their day to day lives.

I think that the current movie rating system established by the MPAA allows for movie studios and producers to clearly rate what category their movie should be rated in. If you throw out the NC-17 rating which is rarely used anymore because most movies that could be rated that, are releasing two versions of the movie on dvd format in either Rated or Unrated versions, i feel that the four other ratings are the right amount.
The ‘G’ rating is self explanatory, the ‘PG’ rating is the only one where you really have to figure out whether it should be PG-13 or PG, and i really think that there should be some sort of criteria that separates the two other than parental cautiousness. ‘PG-13′, is also something where you can expect there might be brief nudity (nothing outrageous), and some coarse language, crass jokes, and violence. The ‘R’ rating is also something where going into the movie you know what to expect, there could be nudity, lots of language or no language, crass jokes, drug use and gore and violence.
Now not everything listed will be in every movie, which is why it is a great idea that the situations are listed below the rating for each movie.
When it comes to changes i would like to see made to the MPAA ratings would be not to make them voluntary for theater use. List out a basic set of criteria that involved number of profanities, partial or full nudity, drug use and violence. I know the violence part would be hard, and maybe you could go by how many minutes involve violence. I would not want the MPAA to get too picky, but i think that the difference between PG and PG-13 movies can sometimes be vague.
I also would be an advocate against adding anymore ratings to the list, 4 is plenty and really does cover everything under the book, i just think it should be a little more defined.

I believe the rating system is very dated and need to be updated. The rating system was made to prevent people from being exposed to material that can suggest: violence, drug, or sexual content. I think it’s attainable idea that we are trying to totally protect people from being exposed to certain things. I think that there does come a time when people can be exposed to certain things and understand but I don’t believe it the MPAA’s business to decide when that is. The rating system chooses an age that it think is appropriate  to handle a subject and it’s dumb.

Age is a number the it doesn’t distinguish whether a person is mature enough to handle a subject. There are many people that can handle certain material and not take it to heart and I think age has nothing to do with when a person can deal with something or not.  The rating system should be up to the parent to decide when they believe their child or teen can handle the subject matter.

The nature of the word adult has nothing adult about it.  There are a slew of movie on the market that just promote crude humor, and really have no plot, those movies really I could care less about. But there are some really good ones that are true to the human experience that their message is almost silenced because they have a drug or sex scene, and rated R.  I think the rating should be relevent to what the movie suggests good movie can have suggestive thing but have a great message.

I don’t think you can put a limit on movies with suggestive material because you cant put a rating on life. You cant protect people from things they can come across in life. I mean realistically we live in word where girls can be molested, kids have drug addict parents, and domestic abuse happens.  we cant shelter people an leave them in the dark, or deny them of material. When we do that in a way become how South Africa was in the 1960’s, where they did watch shows with black actors or have music by black recording artists. I think by filtering  material were denying the people of experiencing something real.

Going to the movies has been a pastime for Americans for many years now and have changed a lot over the years. With the changing times comes more movies pushing the envelope of what is or is not socially acceptable and with this we need our ratings system more than ever.

Our movie ratings system helps out parents more than anyone else because it gives them a warning of what to expect that the 30 second commercial on television cannot. Most parents feel comfortable with their children watching “G” rated movies anywhere because they expect these movies to portray good morals and values that other movies don’t have. The “G” Rating is strictly for childrens movies. “PG” rated movies are childrens movies that aren’t as wholesome as the “G” rated movies, but still send positive messages to children and do not allow any swear words or sexual scenes at all.

The next set of ratings is somewhat disturbing because the people who rate the movies are in a way deciding what a 13 year old child can see without a parent, and sometimes the content is not fit for young teens to be viewing. “PG-13″ rated movies are available for children 13 and older to buy a ticket without an adult. This is somewhat disturbing because the only real difference between is the amount of gore, nudity, and violence. The ”PG-13″ movies still have strong sexual scenes without nudity which is nothing that a thirteen year old needs to see. The “R” rating means restricted, which means that nobody under the age of 17 can buy a ticket to these movies. These movies can be pretty much as gory, foul-languaged and sexually explicit as they want without crossing a line that would make it not in good taste.

These rating systems for the most part do their job, but still need some re-working to make the distance between  “PG-13″ and “R” rated movies a little larger.

If you see media, especially blogs of this genre, it is without a doubt, biased-opinionated-and slanted.  Not many bloggers present more than their side, and for good reason.  It is their property.  Likewise with radio and other forms of media, the person who owns this allyway of media should have the right to say, within decency, one’s opinions and slants.

Suppourter of the fairness doctrine, Senator Jeff Bringham, says this

I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.

However, this contradicts the theme of free speech and the idea of presenting both sides.  When the fairness doctrine was set back in the forties, results did not see the kinds predicted.  Instead of radio stations presenting a “fair and balanced” approach towards broadcasting we saw the opposite-a removal of controversial topics, in exchange for comedy hours and other types of entertainment. 

How to track blogging would be another issue.  Not only would this kind of restriction be nearly impossible to track with how the blogsphere operates, it would completely remove the common man’s voice from being able to be heard.  Also, the blogsphere adds more to the way media operates.  It encompasses the fairness doctrine without legislation.  Bloggers natrually link to others, mainly with political blogs, that disagree with them so the blogger can disprove the other bloggers point.  The fairness doctrine seems unnescessary for the internet to say the least. 

If this would start, an issue of who determined what was fair and what isn’t.  With the fairness doctrine, an issue of free speech could be breeched and possibly a communistic theroy could be in place for media.

Our society would not be the same with out movies because of the revenue it brings into the box office. People of all ages and from different surroundings all have one thing in common, they like to purchase and rent movies daily. Renting movies is a hobby far from being expensive to do, the average cost to rent a movie is five dollars. Buying movies is a little more expensive but is usually no more then twenty dollars. Movies are not all the same, they come in many different categories such as Comedy, Horror, Action, Drama, Suspense and even Romance. The one thing that all these different types of movies do have in common are their ratings.

The purpose for having movie ratings is to show the movie-goer if it may or may not be appropriate for them to watch. What determines the ratings of the movie are a few things. The first determining factor is the level of violence. Violence is movies will most likely take place in action and suspense movies. The movie may have too much violence and could be too inappropriate for a child to view. A BIG reason in what determines how well or poorly a movie may be rated is based on the language used in the film. Cursing and inappropriate language can be found in ANY type of movie and this would make the rating not suitable for children to watch. Another major factor would be the sexual conduct that occurs during the movie. If there is any sexual profanity, nudity or anything close to that, this would make it harder to bring one’s children to watch this movie.

I believe that the movie ratings system is perfectly fine where it is currently. I think the ratings are very fair and fitting for the movies. Parents should be the ones that make the decision on whether they allow or do not allow their children to watch the movie. The ratings should not determine whether or not a child can see a specific movie, but whether the parent who makes that decision.

Not many people may agree with the movie ratings system but with how it is already set up, I believe it does a fine job of helping a parent make the decision on whether their child should or should not attend the viewing of the movie.

Paula Rogers
COM 101
November 29, 2009
Chapter 16, Question #3

3.) The writer A.J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one. Explain why you agree or disagree.

The First Amendment guarantees to every American citizen the right to freedom of the press. However, this freedom is not absolute due to the censorship imposed on the media by the American government and other institutions. As A.J. Liebling pointed out, freedom of the press does indeed belong to those who own one.

Within American media, a Libertarian Theory is mainly employed. The Libertarian Theory states that no one power has a monopoly on the truth, and that truth can be discovered through competing claims. This theory is the basis of America’s First Amendment. However, even though within this type of theory there is no monopoly of powers, the same cannot be said about a monopoly of the source and amount of information.

An example of monopolies on information amount and source can be seen in the lack of diversity among American newsgroups present on the frontlines of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; with the main source being CNN. These monopolies can also be seen in not only the control of information, but also the censorship of it was well.

One example of this censorship being put into practice within can be seen in the way the American media was forced to handle the H1N1 flu scare. The H1N1 virus was not made widely known to the public until it had resulted in the death of over five American citizens. The censorship control was blamed not on the media itself, but rather the Government’s control of the information and censoring of it.

Although it is evident that I agree with Liebling’s theory, I also contend that there is an exception to this rule. This exception can be found in the form of blogs. Blogs allow anyone to freely express as well as publicize one’s own thoughts and ideas. In this sense anyone can become a facet of the press with little fear of censorship. Freedom of the press is for those that own one, and with blogs anyone can own one.

Ch.16 | #5

The current rating system is something that is now and forever absolutely necessary. Desensitizing society through changing the current movie rating system would just be something that in time would be regretted. There is a time a reason to how old one should be to see a certain kind of movie pertaining to certain themes. For example sex and drugs is something that should always be out of reach for young children, since it can be so influential. Same goes for the violence and killing some movies offer; there is a reason you have to be of certain age to see a rated R movie alone, and a pG-13 movie with your parent, or vice verse. Could you imagine a young child around the age of 12 sitting in a movie filled with sex, drugs and alcohol? It would be such a bad environment for a child to base their lifestyle off of. Also filling a young person’s head with vulgar language and hatred words and actions is something that will set the stage in their young minds for real life violence and hatred. Keeping the rating system as it is with having enjoyable happy, loving G movies for young tots, to PG movies for almost the whole family, with some parental guidance needed. And again the PG-13 movie rating in which parents are cautioned, and the material that film holds may not be appropriate for children under 13, again depending on their maturity level. The rated R requires anyone under 17 to be accompanied with a parent, again allowing there to still be parental control over what you wish you child to watch or what not to watch without the parents consent. Finally the NC-17 rating does not let anyone under the age of 17 with or without a parent to view, meaning that there is content in the movie that is not appropriate for even a more mature teen viewer. This rating system is an excellent way to let a guardian know whether or not a certain movie s acceptable for the person they are more or less responsible for what they are subjected too. Some movies today push the line, or limit of what the actual rating should be, so having the rating system to be changed or decreased would be something that parents should be concerned with what is not being more acceptable for young viewers to watch. Again desensitizing the mind of young innocent viewers is not something you want to encourage, in time they will learn and know what type of awful things society and the media has to offer but until then let the young stay innocent. In this case knowing is not everything, and therefore some things are worth waiting for.

In 1949, the FCC put into act a ruling they called the Fairness Doctrine, requiring radio stations to partake in disputable broadcasting with equal exposure to each sides of a story. But activists took advantage of the law meant for equality and stations were soon met with loss of advertisers and viewers as they attempted to please all with Fairness over the airwaves. Anti-smoking supporters twisted the FCC’s doctrine around their own objectives, forcing smoking advertisements off radio with a flood of reverse publicity. Through many other commercial conflicts, the Fairness Doctrine was soon lighted as more of a weight on radio than an aid, and the FCC lifted the law in 1987. Yet, is there a revival on the horizon for this mid-19^th century enactment? As democrats suit up for the battle to equalize the radio waves, are we faced with the recovery of a “hush-Rush” promotional flood?

Democrats such as Senator Debbie Stabenow claim that the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would, “be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” In a country were the majority of the radio is dominated by Conservative talk shows, liberals are fighting for equality. Is the fight for Fairness necessary? No. Why plead the government to step in where the public has already clearly chosen. Radio stations, funded solely on advertisers, are completely focused on the listeners’ wants and opinions. Liberal shows haven’t been banned from the air, simply put aside due to a lack of desire for them. If the liberals want their views heard, they should take a lesson from Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck in their approach of providing content, and stop trying to federally force their shows on the radio.

The consequences of restoring the Fairness Doctrine lead to the cavernous demise of conservative talk shows. Even greater, putting this law back into action in radio would strip the American voice of what we hold most dear – our freedom. If a station is unable to express their opinions and convictions without blanketing them with the viewpoints of every other possible opinion, have they not lost the right to freely state their own beliefs? Furthermore, is radio not a form of the press that our nation claims to protect the freedoms of? The chairman of the FCC during the time of its law’s dismissal, Mark S. Fowler, told radio viewers that the Fairness Doctrine was removed as “a matter of principle not partisanship,” claiming that the law had begun to violate the freedom of speech and a free press.

Radio is just as much a part of the press of our nation as the newspapers that sit on the stands in every city; therefore, let the voices of the radio ring with clarity and not be muffled with the comeback of a uniformed captivity. Let radio’s voice be the pen that writes the story to our nation, not fairly, but free.

Chapter 16 Question 5

Think back to the variety of movies you’ve seen over your lifetime. Odds are, you’ve seen a wealth of movies through many different decades. Now think about the content covered within those films. MPAA ratings have certainly changed since they began in the 1960’s. What was once inappropriate is now readily acceptable in todays society. For example, the vulgarity portrayed in the 1980’s Breakfast Club (which was rated R), would likely be a PG 13 movie if it were to be released today. It is for this reason that I think that the rating system should not necessarily be ‘changed’ but enhanced rather.

The way I propose that the rating system should be enhanced is to give the reasons why the film earned the rating that it did. Even though you can easily access the reasons behind the given rating online or from various other sources, I think it would make much more sense to give a brief reason underneath the rating as to why it was given the rating it did. This could easily be done by letters like ‘v’ for violence or ‘n’ for nudity. By doing this, there would be no surprises for viewers or complaints when they were blindsided by the content of a ‘racy’ PG 13 rated film.

As the times change, so do the contents of movies. As the contents of movies change, so must the rating systems. This is how I propose they change it. G rating could likely stay just a G rating PG could possibly include a rating of IH for inappropriate humor if thats what it includes. PG 13 could include descriptions such as MN for mild nudity or SC or sexual content. R could include any of the dedicated ‘bonus’ ratings.

Ratings are essential as guideposts for movies, but that line that is drawn has become so fuzzy that one can never really know what to expect upon deciding to go to a movie. This is a way to help solve this problem or at least make it a little more clear. It could also help by clearing up the MPAAs inconsistency of movie ratings by allowing the viewer judge for themselves.

Movies are a important source of entertainment in today’s society.  Many familes and individuals alike attend movies each week and also purchase movies daily.  Movies have become a pretty cheap source of entertainment in society and will continue this trend for years to come.  There are many types of movies out in today’s world.  There’s your comedies that make people laugh, then you have your horror movies that scare people out of their seats, you also have your action movies that keep watchers on the edge of their seats with non-stop action.  There is also your love stories, or chick flicks, which is normally a feministic movie that has to do with love and normally tends to attract more females.  Whatever the genre of movie may be the one thing that is consistently found on all these types of movies is the rating. 

The rating system is the system that is used to determine what age group a specific movie is appropriate for based on several factors.  One of the factors is violence.  Normally this is found in your action movies, and sometimes there is violence that can be described as gruesome and may be deemed too much for younger audiences.  Another factor that is taken into account in the ratings system is language.  This can cover a wide range of movies depending on the characters and also the plot of the movie.  If a movie has too much profanity or harsh language the ratings will be tagged as inappropriate for younger audiences.  Sexual conduct is also a factor that is taken into consideration when rating movies.  If there is any nudity, sexual actions, or anything of that nature than the ratings will move up and it will be tougher for parents to take their kids to see these types of movies. 

I think the movie ratings system is fine exactly where it is at.  I think it gives a fair description of the type of acts they will be displayed in the movie and parents can decide for themselves whether or not they will allow their children to view a specific movie or not.  I don’t think the current ratings system should be changed at all because it does a fine job of determining how “bad” a specific movie is and the appropriate age group that the movie is suited for.  It also helps because teachers can use movies in classes and can check the ratings system to determine if a movie is suitable to show in a class. 

Although there are many people that probably feel the ratings system should be changed or edited, I believe that it is fine where it is and is serving its purpose in informing viewers of what kind of actions to expect in the movie.

The opportunity to gain an education in the United States is increasing, which means that more people are gaining better intelligence. Within the early century of our country the gap between the un-educated and the educated was not as close as it is now. Today’s environment of allows for knowledge to be more accessible, such as free library check out and the mass of information that is distributed throughout the internet. Although there was a larger gap in the educational system in the past, people still had the same passions to speak out against the political systems as they do today. The First Amendment, freedom of the press, speech, expression, and religion, allows for our society to convey or feelings thoroughly.

Writer A.J. Liebling once stated that freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one. Although this statement could have once been true in America’s past, the increase in education allows for better judgment in what people print, and in today’s society, post. With newspaper’s typically being represented as a form of press, online blogs can be a form of press too. To own an online blog or a newspaper there is no license required which means that owning one is available to anybody who can read or write.

Not having a license to start a newspaper gives opportunity for more independent outlets to own a press and a newspaper. School newspapers are a form of independent press that can exist within high school and college .

Online blogs can too be a form of independent press. The only difference between the both is that school newspapers are mostly created by more that one person and blogs are only created by one and don’t require a press. I disagree with A.J. Liebling’s statement that freedom of the press only belongs to those who owned one because of the influence blogs have to distribute the news as a form of press.

“Freedom of the press belongs only to those who own one.”

-A. J. Liebling, The New Yorker

Reporters are much like preachers. Both do something that, realistically, anyone can do. Preachers read the Bible, interpret it, and presents it in an understandable format to others. Reporters observe events, interpret them, and present them in an understandable way to others. Preachers may or may not have attended seminary, reporters may or may not have a degree in journalism or communication. Both have a job and a position of prominence that is based simply in the fact that people trust them and give them the authority to relay information their desired and preferred way.

If a preacher then, is anyone a body of people, or congregation, gives authority to present the Bible to them, then a reporter is anyone an audience gives their ears or eyes to in the confidence that they will report what the deem as news.

In a speech before the National Press Club, blogger/reporter Matt Drudge said:

Every citizen can be a reporter, can take on the powers that be… The Net gives as much voice to a 13-year-old computer geek like me as to a CEO or speaker of the House. We all become equal.

With new blogs emerging and claiming an audience literally everyday, any person with access to computer owns a press. The idea that Liebling formulated in the ’50s  to make reporting and rights of the press exclusive is now the idea that makes reporting ultimately inclusive and open to virtually anyone as multitudes of people not only own a “press,” but carry them into their homes, libraries, and coffee shops.

Today, the freedom of press belongs to anyone and everyone as interested audiences give as much reporting power to the guy in his pajamas writing from his mom’s basement as the guy with a tie in a newsroom by simply lending their eyes and ears to the content they want.

The invention of the Internet is forcing newsmakers and newsreaders to adjust to a new world of journalism that is no longer confined to paper pages and printing presses.

Internet journalism has created a new online autonomy where financial and educational barriers no longer exist, and free reign is given to anyone and everyone who desires to participate in the global village.

Writer and great press critic A.J. Liebling (1904-1963) once said that “freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” Liebling proposed this idea in regards to newspapers and magazines more than 40 years ago when freedom of the press was much more limited. But, with time, Liebling’s quip has only become more applicable and more true as the Internet has made freedom of the press easier than ever.

Freedom of the press no longer means investing thousands and thousands of dollars into a printing press so as to obtain the first amendment liberty. The only place I would disagree with Liebling in his idea is that freedom of the press can now exist for little to no money, simply by investing in a personal computer or by taking advantage of free computer access at a library. Now freedom of the press exists not only to those who own one, but to those who simply have access to one, as well.

In addition to financial restrictions being removed, educational barriers that once existed have now been lifted, as well. The growing convenience of the Internet now makes it easier than ever for anyone to be a public informant or to be informed by the public. In unrestricted arenas such as blogs and online journals, freedom of the press exists for all educational backgrounds, regardless of degree or experience (or, rather, a lack thereof).

In his 1998 speech with the National Press Club, Matt Drudge was met by a roomful of reporters and writers who did not consider him a journalist based on his “lack of training or education in journalism.” Despite the opposition he faced, Drudge realized 11 years ago the absolute freedom of participation that Internet journalism offered, and envisioned “a future where there’ll be 300 million reporters, where anyone from anywhere can report for any reason.” He also went on to say something oddly similar to that of Liebling, that “freedom of the press belongs to anyone who owns one.”

Healthcare worker and blogger Kevin Carson agrees in his defense of internet journalism, that “freedom of the press is great, as long as you own a press. But guess what? Now more than half the households in America do own a press.”

What Liebling said 50 years ago is as true as what Carson said 10 months ago. The only difference is not that freedom of the press itself has changed, but that its audience has changed. As time goes on, freedom of the press continues to become easier and more accessible, giving more and more people the liberty that was once only guaranteed to a few.

The amount of violence, sex, profanity, and drug references that is exposed to children and teenagers through the media has been gradually increasing over the past few years. This has caused children and teenagers to do things like act more violent and use drugs and alcohol. It can cause them to think that these things are not as serious as they really are, because it is everywhere to be seen. Movies play a big part in this. Movies are rated to let people know what kind of content is held in them and to restrict certain ages from watching what they don’t need to be watching. Ratings also help parents know what not to show their kids.

The movie rating system consists of five different ratings which are G (“General Audiences”), PG (“Parental Guidance”), PG -13 (“Parental Guidance until the age of 13″), R (“Restricted”), and NC -17 (“No one 17 and Under Admitted”). The fact that movie makers keep making movies with more and more violence, sex, drugs, and profane language means that there are less and less movies being made that are free of those things. There are hardly any “G” rated movies that come out these days, that are fun for the whole family and okay for all ages to watch. Because of the fall in the making of “G” rated movies, “PG” rated movies have gradually become seen as decent movies that don’t necessarily need parental guidance. The world has gradually become less and less aware of the importance of keeping the youth from being exposed to things such as drugs, sex, violence and foul language. As this happens, more bad things start to appear in movies that for example, should be rated “R” but are rated “PG-13″ instead. Movies that are rated “PG” these days would have been considered rated “PG-13″ a decade ago.

The importance of drawing people in and making more money plays a part in this situation. An online source reflects on this:

“Movie ratings are becoming less and less trustworthy in terms of giving parents real guidance on shows with unsuitable content. PG-13 movies tend to make more money than R-rated films, and as a result, the industry is experiencing a “ratings creep”: shows that the Motion Picture Association of America would once have rated R are now being rated as PG-13, in order to increase box-office profits and rental sales.”

The movie rating system used to be strong in giving fair ratings to movies, but it has weakened over time. Movie ratings should be fair according to the content of the movies so that the young and naive are kept from seeing the bad things that they could be vulnerable to. Children and teens should not be exposed to violence, drugs, etc. until they are old enough to handle them maturally.

New movies come out everyday. They are placed with a rating that is suppose to signify who can watch them and gives a brief description of the content the movies may hold. The ratings range from “a rated G movie to a rated NC-17 movie. G rating refers to a movie that is for a general audience of all ages. The next rating is a PG movie. In PG rated movies kids are supposed to have parent consent to be able to view it. Next, there is PG-13 which means that parents should be caution because content may be to much for kids under 13. Then, there is R and NC-17 which refer to movies that you pretty much need to be over the age of 17 and mature to see. I have very mixed emotions about the movie rating system today.

I think the movie rating system is positive and works in the following ways. Although, kids are still going to find a way to watch movies they are not supposed to because of there parents. I believe the movie rating system has helped to regulate a lot of that. Most movie theaters really take the rules seriously and ask for some identification to make sure kids are of age to see a movie. The key to this movie rating system running successful is that parents must follow it. If the movies is rated R then a parent does not need to take there young child in to see it. I was in a R rated movie the other day and all a kid did next to me was cry the whole movie. The kid couldn’t have been older then 12 and I guess he was there with his parents. Obviously, by the way he cried the whole time he should not have been in that movie. I don’t blame that on him at all though. It was definitely his parents fault for not regulating what he watched.

Although, I have stated many things that I like about the movie rating system. I do think this system has some flaws. I think the system doesn’t concentrate hard enough on violence. If a movie has one small sex scene it is usually rated R or worse. I believe it should almost be the same for movies with really violent scenes. With all the terrible things going on in this world, kids do not need to be watching tons of killing just because a movie was left with a PG-13 rating when it should be rated R.

With all that being said I believe that the movie ranking system is more effective then not. I think that it is as good as it is going to be. With everything there great there is always going to be some kind of flaws and things that people don’t like. I don’t believe that you can make the movie rating any better by changing it. If you changed it then something else would be wrong and people would complain about it. The rating system has worked for many years now. Therefore, with the help from parents the movie rating system will succeed and be effective. All and all the system serves for one main purpose and that is to regulate who watches what. It does that job which means it doesn’t need to be changed or tampered with.

Chapter 15 – Question 4

I think that both hands on classes and theory classes combined create a wholesome curriculum that best prepares students for working in a media-based vocation. My fiancé recently graduated from the Mass Communications major here at Anderson University. I can say with complete confidence that both theory classes and having hands on experience helped him land the job he is working in now – the job of his dreams.

He currently is a video and graphics producer for an institution and he loves every minute of it. He often references various methods or techniques he learned in the program and understands the reasons why the methods are most effective in reaching his target audience. I am so proud of him when he can explain why a televised advertisement is effective and he is very helpful when I am trying to see if certain media content has been produced well. He is passionate about producing effective and relevant media for the audience he is focused on and I know that the broad curriculum taught at Anderson University helped him cultivate that passion.

I feel that having theory or hands on classes alone deprives the student from experiencing the full range of knowledge that mass communications has to offer. I would think that only having one or the other truly limits a student’s ability to grasp what mass communications truly is. What is knowing the method without knowing the theory behind it? Or, what use is knowing how to produce media, without knowing how to be the most effective? I feel that theory class and hands on practice are both two halves of a whole. I also feel that Anderson University does a fairly good job of offering both sides of the mass communication spectrum.

When looking at the courses communication majors have to take at AU and all the different emphasis’ you can have, i think the University does a wonderful job at balancing classes that are only focused on theory and classes that are mostly focused on practice. When I first started my communications major in Public Relations and Advertising, i never really understood why i would have to take TV production, advanced TV production and other types of newswriting classes. However, after learning in COM 111, that alot of journalist now-a-days are having to do all of the jobs that are involved with writing the story, shooting video for the story and uploading the story onto the internet. Now it is clear why the University sets its classes up the way it does.
However, i do think that too much of “practice” oriented classes can hinder a students knowledge on topics situated in the media business. Liberal arts colleges are starting to move toward classes focused on knowledge of broad topics and not focused on knowledge of just one topic. And i think for the most part, Anderson University has done a pretty good job of incorporating both theory and practice.
However, i do think that there should be more class offerings for the different concentrations to allow students to choose their own path in their major instead of having to do so much hands-on projects in courses that do not pertain to their concentration.

College curriculum all across the nation can vary in many ways in any particular major. When discussing a communications degree, there are some universities and colleges that offer a major that consist of more objective courses then hands-on courses. These universities usually tend to be your liberal arts colleges or your four year programs that are going to offer a very good degree in communications. Usually your two year institutions offer a communications degree that consist of more hands on courses. I understand that teachers at liberal arts colleges think that there should probably be less hands-on courses at there school, but I don’t agree with that. Although, I do see where they are coming from cause hands-on courses can tend to be easier then other courses.

I personally think that theory courses and practice courses in media work hand and hand together. Without theory courses you cannot teach practice course because the person learning the material would be so lost. You must take theory courses and find out all the background information about communications to be able to practice things that deal with the major. For example, when your learning about theory you will get introduced to the way things were done in the past. Peoples opinions and theories about how devices, advertising, and broadcasting was invented. You need these to know all this information to be able to practice skills and do hands-on work. All the information you learned in theory classes can be put together with your thoughts so you can produce a better idea on how to run things.

I believe that hands-on, practical-skills courses should definitely belong in the curriculum for a communications degree in a liberal arts college. I think that hands-on classes are a key to success in the real world once you have gotten your degree. When you get out in the real world and all you have is knowledge about communications then your not going to be near as successful as somebody who knows how to actually work equipment in that field. I think that classes such as news reporting, radio, and field operations can really help you develop skills to be successful after graduation. I believe that in this world today we are getting many more free lance reporters, so if you have learned those skills you can make some money on your own reporting. Radio classes get your prepared to start live broadcasts on the radio as soon as you finish school and field operations prepare you to be on television or run cameras. Therefore, the company that you go to work for doesn’t have to waste time teaching you skills that you could or should have previously learned.

Media and communications departments are gradually becoming popular majors at respective colleges and universities around the country.  More and more students each year are wanting to get into the field of communications and mass media.  Media jobs are slowly starting to become more widespread in the job field and are being eaten up by many job seekers and college students with the hopes of one day acquiring one of these jobs.  This being the case, many colleges and universities are taking the media and communications departments at their respective institutions more seriously as it is becoming a tool that draws prospective students to their campus. 

Many colleges and universities used to take their media and communications departments lightly.  These departments would not get much funds, time, or resources because it wasn’t thought of as a popular major and not many people were in the department.  But as mass communications jobs started becoming popular and newscasting jobs are becoming widespread this field is starting to up its numbers and increase its seriousness of the department. 

My concerns about the state of media studies at my university is the fact that there is only one professor teaching all of the main communications courses.  This is a concern because the professor can only teach a certain number of classes and has to make sure he teaches a variety of classes which means some classes will not get offered meaning that some students may have to delay their schedule a semester or two.  This also concerns me because students have to take the same professor for all their courses and may become tired or too accustomed to the same professor and this may have an indirect impact on the students grades.  A criticism I have about our media studies is that it is not really publicized.  You always hear alot about the education department, business department, interior design, and also the Christian ministries department, but the communications department is often overlooked.  If we want to become a successful communications and media department, we have to publicize our department more and sell it to prospective students interested in inquiring about the major. 

These concerns come with much praise for the communications department.  I don’t have much knowledge about the department but from what I heard it is steadily on the rise and is working hard to improve each facet of the department.

How do advertisers know how to make their products appealing to adolescence? Something that academic researchers and media industries can study together is learning new ways to teach kids in a way that makes it easier for them. There are many ways that children learn. There are auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learners.

If the media industries and the academic researchers could find a way to teach material to auditory learners by coming up with new methods it would help multiple children learn easier. There are many characteristics that show who is an auditory learner.

Auditory learners learn best by listening and talking aloud. They typically notice and remember sounds. They are good at remembering things that they hear. They are also good with words and language. They often read to themselves as they study. They are also often distracted by noise and sounds.

Today teachers do well with visual teachings. Visual kids learn from watching examples and videos. They also learn form reading the material and observing bulletin boards.

However, if the visual learner uses a visual aid when studying, like a colorful outline of test materials, he or she may retain more information. For this type of learner, visual tools improve the ability to recall information more completely. A simple explanation of learning styles is this: Some students remember best materials they’ve seen, some remember things they’ve heard, while others remember things they’ve experienced.

Kinesthetic learners have to work with their hands and be involved in the teaching. Projects and models are the best way to help these children learn. A few good examples are:

It is important for those with high kinesthetic intelligence to be physically involved with learning. This can include participating in lab experiments and acting out scenarios. Kinesthetic learners should also use all five senses. For example, a kinesthetic learner could actually make a model of something he or she is studying.

If media industries and academic researchers would focus on this issue of helping all different kinds of children learn then it will help the next generation be more intelligent and productive.

Chapter 15 Question 4

One of the most essential elements of our changing society is the study of media effects. There are various different ways of going about studying this. Two of the main ways are  just learning about the various different theories and actually putting the theories into practice. I believe that practical skills courses in this are absolutely essential, regardless of where you attend school.

Consider this, you go throughout your college experience learning about the various different ways of portraying media, however you have never put them into action. What if this is your situation and you land yourself a job at a news corporation soon after graduating from you college career? You would be a very small fish in a very big pond. Now consider the opposing situation: you have experienced news writing and print already for several years and are very knowledgeable in your practice. This would certainly make for a better situation.

A liberal arts school is defined as ‘a school that is aimed at imparting general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities, in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum’. Sure, if you were to try and stick with the straightforward definition of a liberal college, theory would probably far outweigh the actual practice of media effects. However, you lose so much by not actually doing what you are studying. Why should a media studies major be limited to a separate mass communication college? The answer is simple, they shouldn’t. I know I personally am not even majoring in communications. However, being a graphic design major I can also study mass media and actually put it to use. This will be very helpful in my individual situation. Anderson University actually supplies a wide assortment of practical skills courses rather than purely theory and I am very grateful for this.

Even though I have stressed the importance of the practice in communications courses, theory is also extremely important. Without theory in courses such as news reporting or advertising copywriting, you would be forced to start on a completely new frontier. Theory is also extremely necessary. As Lee Lacocca said,

“You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can’t get them across, your ideas won’t get you anywhere”

This pretty much sums up the balance that is necessary between theory and practice. Through theory, you have to know how to get your words across and through practice, you’ll actually know what to do with your ideas.

Chapter 15- #4

“The difference between theory and practice in theory is much less than the difference between theory and practice in practice.”

-Randal L Schwartz

When it comes to the relationship between theory and practice, both are of the same importance. With the knowledge of theory comes the performance of practice. However the question at hand is would hands-on, practical-skills courses such as those of news reporting, advertising, copywriting and TV productions benefit and advance more in that of a liberal arts college or in a separate mass communication college. Again, being able to practice theory is an experience that books can’t expose. So if the case is that a communication college has more to offer in terms of practice and hands on experience, on should opt for the opportunity to study and advance at a college such as this. Although the general knowledge learned in the liberal arts college is also an important benefactor to the professional knowledge based skill level, one would have to guess if the focus of just ones major at a communication college is that of an even trade to eliminating the general education that one would receive at a liberal arts college. In conclusion to this debating question the fact of focusing in on practice rather than just learning the theory behind what media has to offer should in theory compensate for the unnecessary classes one would take a liberal arts college that focusing only on theory.

In the media exists a global village within television. This village is largely centered around the younger generation who favor the thrill of watching cartoons. Many American-made cartoons and childhood shows where expanded to other countries outside of the United States based on their local popularity. Sesame Street is a major childhood show which started in the United States that has expanded into the televisions of several countries around the world. Their goal for doing so is to not only allow children of the United States to benefit from their educated shows but to let other children benefit as well. Disney is also a major media establishment that has crept into the global village. After the death of its creator, Walt Disney in 1966, Disney’s studio began to go down hill. However in 1984 Michael Eisner and his new team of management took over creating world renown movies such as, Beauty and the Beast , Fantasia and the Lion King .With its growing fame Disney constructed a theme park in Japan that has bee of much success. Another example of Disney’s global village is with Saudi Arabia’s satellite owned station, Orbit .This station, located in Rome, allows for Disney to be viewed in twenty three countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Not only do Americans own massive television shows that have a global village, but Japanese do as well. Anime, known as a style of Japanese animation is thriving in many cartoons shown in the United Stated. Some shows that are created by Japanese are Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, and Sailor Moon.

The meaning of a global village is something I relate with the media. Although global villages can be within international news, journals or the internet, I relate a global village being in the television. This is based off of how I have seen televion involved within other countries. Mexico and other hispancic countries have taken many American made films, shows, and citcoms and have created them sutiable for spanish speaking people. However, despite for Japan many of the television shows that are in the global village come from the United States. This means that allow there are many countries outside the United States, it seems to the force of the global village within television.

Chapter 14; Question 2

If I were a reporter or an editor, would I quit voting in order to demonstrate my ability to be neutral?  That is a good question that doesn’t have an easy answer.  If I decide to vote, I am automatically no longer neutral; I have chosen a side.  On the other hand, I feel that voting is the duty of every American citizen.  I would choose to vote for a couple of reasons.

According to Jim VandeHei, in an article put out by Politico,

“It is our job to do everything plausible to divorce ourselves from political bias as we try to earn the trust of readers and report as evenhandedly as humanly possible. I am neither foolish enough nor idealistic enough to believe any reporter can strip away all personal feelings and partisan inclinations.”

It is this last part that forms my decision.  A reporter can’t strip away all his partisan inclinations.  Even if a reporter didn’t vote, the newspaper or news channel they work for is probably bias towards a certain party.  In that case, does who the reporter votes for really change the public’s view of them and how objective they are?  Is true objectivity really possible?  I think I would vote because I don’t think it would compromise me as a journalist.  I am fully capable of voting and still being able to write neutral articles.  John F. Harris, in the same article, agrees:

“A journalist can cast votes and have opinions, even strong ones, and still be fair. We do it by letting people have their say, by not putting our thumb on the scale with loaded language, and by having the modesty as reporters to admit that information is always fragmentary and it is our role to tell stories but not to pretend that we are society’s High Court of Truth.”

If I were a reporter, I would still vote in general elections.  I am not going to compromise in order to please my readers.  They can decide if I am truly fair based on the articles I write, and not based on if I vote or not.

Washington Post journalist, Eugene Robinson, admonished journalists who believed in refraining from voting by saying, “I think you can be objective in your work and still have personal opinions. Isn’t that what a professional is? . . . Being a journalist can’t mean giving up your fundamental rights as an American. At least, not for me.” As a free country, is it right to limit the people of the press with the objective of controlling the opinions that may leak into the news that they report? I think not. How can journalists be limited without creating segregation and being relabeled to the point where they don’t qualify as citizens anymore?

Journalism has consistently stood for the sole purpose of reporting news to people worldwide, without clouding their views with a bias. However, through issues such as politics, we have discovered that passionate views in the press are inevitable; and honestly, they are necessary. Imagine picking up the newspaper and the headline reads, “Thousands died and many were injured.” Now you scan the title of a newspaper article that pleads, “America attacked! Where has our patriotism gone?” Which invokes a more emotional reaction? Would a reader even apprehend the meaning of the account in the first headline?

As a part of an impartial press, journalists try to publish open-minded reports, but as American citizens, as free residents, they are called to tell the story of America in the media. Should journalists in America vote? Are journalists Americans? But should the political sway of a reporter dominate the articles that they distribute to the public? That’s up to editor. As for my individual viewpoint, opinions are personal, but the press must maintain an aspect of intimacy with information or their stories may begin to blend into a callous emotional unconsciousness.

Is a bias altogether wrong? In a free country we are expected to express our opinions daily in the foods we order, the politicians we elect, the religions we stand by. It seems only natural that our nations journalists would display reflective inclinations. Our country has attempted to restrict the views of journalists by prohibiting them to vote and denying them the freedom to speak their opinions with the truth of the news they report. But as the opinions of reporters are capped the voices of the people are shattered and all that’s left? Objective silence.

Up until the age of 16 I was very involved and concerned about politics. I know I wasn’t old enough to vote, or knowledgeable enough to make a well-informed, persuasive argument, but I was very passionate about my inherited political views. One night I decided to leave Fox News for a few seconds to look for other news shows. I stumbled upon one on Comedy Central called the Colbert Report. I nodded along as he lambasted liberal views in a very Bill O’Reilly style. I quickly realized he was making fun of most of the things I believed, but I continued to watch and laugh along. That night, I became a Colbert Report regular.

While my political views and overall concern with politics has shifted quite a bit since I was 16, I am still quite a fan of satirical news shows. The beauty of these shows is that they can step on as many toes as they want and say things that, if said by any other “serious” news program, would have people highly upset, without being abrasively offensive.

As I continued to watch Steve Colbert address politics in a ridiculous manner, I came to see just how ridiculous politics really were. I became very cynical and, eventually, just didn’t really care about politics at all. I continued to laugh along every night, but distanced myself further and further from the political content and just really enjoyed seeing people, including myself, get made fun of.

From my experience, satirical news shows reveal more about the person watching them than about the actual content they address. The Colbert Report made me realize just how annoying Bill O’Reilly was, but it didn’t affect the way I voted in the 2008 election. The shows don’t just make fun of politicians, they also make fun of news media itself. John Stewart runs “live” and “investigative” reports without leaving the studio while the hosts of Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” runs a collection of novelty stories with a punch line.

Satirical news programs not only affect the way we look at politics, they affect the way we view news. While satirical news programs may make people, especially a younger generation, more cynical about politics, it doesn’t seem like comedians will be any more effective at swaying voters than the traditional journalist.

Have you ever watched the news and felt like something they said was completely wrong? Maybe that’s because it was. News is produced so fast that sometimes there is now way that everything in a story could be exactly correct. In our world today I feel like everything that is in the news is some type of tragedy. I know that harmful events is what people love to hear about, but I think we need to some how work on changing that. Every night when I flip on the television and watch the news all I usually see is that somebody killed someone, a house burned down, or that a store was robbed. What is our world coming too? Maybe if we stopped giving all this terrible events so much news coverage then the people doing them would realize there not getting any publicity for being stupid.

I have a great deal of criticisms about the news and the way it is presented to us. The first one of these really hits me home pretty closely. I am not going to get in to the story to much but my father was in a moped accident about a month ago and didn’t survive the accident. The nightly news came on right after the wrecked happen and already had a story. News channels today are trying to get a story way to quickly, just so they can be the first ones to report it. I believe this is ridiculous and something needs to be changed. Some of the facts stated that night were found out later to be completely wrong. Therefore the news channel told who ever was listening that night false information. I see giving out false information as a very big deal especially when its about life and death. Another criticism that I have about the news is how awful most of the stories are in today’s news. Everything that is broadcasted is about tragedies. I just don’t understand why our society thrives about people committing crimes. I truly believe that if we some how started producing positive stories then it would catch on quickly and maybe help us to become less violent as a country.

Although I have mentioned some negative things about news media, I do believe it embraces some positive characteristics. News media today is doing a great job of keeping us updated on all the latest sporting events. We are always able to know the score of a game as soon as it happens. If you have stocks in the market today then you have live access to that all day which is a huge help to people involved with that. The news is doing a great job of covering stuff that happens nationally. For example, a shuttle taking of into space, the hot air balloon hoax, presidential events, and so many others. I personally believe that everyone has a different opinion about the news. No matter what opinion you and I have about news, news is always going to be so we are just going to have to take the good with the bad.

question #1

The news today is becoming a cut-throat business and having the newest story or the inside scoop is all the rage, but with all the changes the news has been going through during the course of time it seems the industry has lost its humanity and has become a market that seems to hint that you should get the story at any cost.

I think that there are certain respects that that the news should have in situations that deal with people. I don’t think the news shouldn’t be involved with personal or family matters. With the ordeal of Governor Sanford; if a politician cheats on his wife I don’t think it’s the media business to run the story all over the news.  I think in cases like that it’s a personal or family matter and the media has no right to know what goes on.  People have feelings and hypothetically; if I was a wife and my husband cheated on me I would not want anyone to know.  I think by people knowing things like that that happen behind closed doors it can affect what, and how people think of you.  I think the media turns people into victims and thrown under a microscope and every move you make and the choice made in your family life and many other aspects of are then under scrutiny of millions of people who don’t know you.

Another example: around a year ago when Britney Spears famously had her breakdown, where the cops got involved and she was taken away to the hospital. I do not think it was the media business to be anywhere around her home and taking pictures, that was a sensitive time. We all have moments them just we usually have privacy to deal with our problems. When the media gets involved in delicate situations like that I think things like that just continue to push a hurting person over the edge (not that I’m a Spears fan) but I really think they should have just had the decency to leave her alone.

Julia Roberts a few years back was driving in a school zone and the paparazzi followed her insistently, and Roberts blew up at them saying “Don’t stake out someone’s children’s church, school or playground environment,” and demanding the paparazzo to turn off the camera.  With the way the media I heading today it’s becoming ridiculous and clear that celebrities and other well known figures just want to be left alone.

Only decades ago stories like this were thrown under the rug it’s very well known that John F. Kennedy had numerous affairs and none of them were brought to light. It seems a though the reporters of the past had more ethic when writing stories, and more respect for personal lives.Just because someone is a celebrity does not mean they are more or less of a person, and I think it come to a point where if our losing humanity is worth the story.

But they do a good job getting to the bottom of things and portraying people in a false light.

Chapter 14 question 5

As a reporter one must know his or her involvement with culture in order to report news in a way their culture will receive it.  There are dangers and advantages to being involved and detatched from the public when reporting.

A positive advantage would be that a reporter would be up todate with what their culture is interested.  No one wants the read news that is not newsworthy to them. When one is involved with culture and public life though a bias might introduce itself into one’s writing.  For example, one would know the importance of independent living is to Americans-it is common knowledge.  However, when reporting an interprise story about the positivies of it, because one has a slant towards it, could cause fewer readers towards the other side.  This is a danger when reporting anything and a slight slant will always occur, but when involved deeply in public life a greater bias is more often to occur.

But when one becomes detatched to the public he or she completely seperates theirselves from what could possibly offend someone.  Ethics will come into play when one is distant from the public life. Fox news comments on controversial coverage of the Jackson death event. 

Ethical issues will always be an issue when reporting but at least when one is involved in the public there will be a better understanding on what is too far and what isn’t.   However according to the Associated Press there has been lots of ethics questioned this year

For a number of years there had been concerns for the condition of world affairs, but it was only from 2008 September, that the media started reporting correct developments, as they got to know. This gave a warning to the common public that things were worse than what they imagined.

As possibly reporting in the future, I will have to be aware of public interests in light of being fair and balanced with my reporting.

With the recent accusations from the White House levied against Fox News on how they are a “conservative” network, a big topic now-a-days is how to keep from being labeled as a conservative or liberal reporter. I think the question of whether a reporter or editor would consider not voting because it might allow them to have a more neutral outlook on political circumstances, is a good question, but the answer should be an easy one.

I would never stop voting just because i need to come across as neutral or not. I think that an editor of a newspaper would have a meeting with his reporters telling them that in the upcoming months they need to start presenting both sides of an issue, or refrain from making personal opinion statements on air or in an article. I also believe that a professional reporter should understand that unless they are going to work for a company that promotes a certain party, then they are going to at one point or another, going to have to seem as if they are a neutral reporter.

Another reason why i think that i would not have to quit voting is because i like to figure out what candidate i am going to vote for early on in the process. This would allow me to stay out of what everyone else is thinking and talking about. However, if I was a reporter or an editor and i was called on to debate someone or present answers over a certain situation, i think that would be the hardest time for me to make myself seem neutral because it would be tough for me to present both sides of an argument, when in my head i would be wanting to only present one side of the argument.

Chapter 15 Question 5

Consider this, you’re standing on the street when all of a sudden a huge gang fight breaks out right down the block, or a building is held up by a well known criminal. It is your responsibility to portray this to the public; every aspect. You can’t leave any detail behind. Living your life as a journalist could be both rewarding and at the same time very nerve-wracking. You would live your life looking through completely different eyes.

The rewarding factor would certainly be the fact that you would become very observant of your surroundings all of the time. This could allow you to live your life to a much deeper level. Not only that but it could also allow you to make wiser decisions and keep yourself in much safer situations. It could also allow you to form a more justified view of the world and all its aspects. You would have to look at everything that happened to and around you and view it from every possible angle. This would allow you to be less biased and more knowledgeable about the position you hold for every situation.

On the contrast, living as a journalist could also be very stressful and make you live your life a bit more ‘on edge’. It would give you a constant feeling of responsibility for ‘knowing the facts’ and keeping them straight. It could be easy for journalism to become your life in the sense that you could detach yourself from your own personal life and always focus on what was going on around you. In a sense, your life could become these events. Your life could transform into always looking to what’s happening now and tomorrow rather than what happened yesterday. Journalists have a social responsibility to portray what is going on within our state, country, and even world. They have the responsibility to show us things as they really are, not downplay them or blow them completely out of proportion. They must know their limitations and stick to them, making every story less biased and more well rounded.

Speaking personally, I probably would not want to live my life with the responsibility of always being aware of what’s is going on and knowing every side to a story. Needless to say, I probably wouldn’t be the best candidate to report important information to the public either.

“I would be lying if I said the journalism doesn’t reflect my own choices as a reporter and a writer: what to say, what to emphasize, how to say it, what is true or untrue.” ~David Simon

Linked to more than just presenting the news, reporters have to be aware of almost all social attachments and engagements of their everyday lives. With the role of a reporter being to inform the public on daily news, many have found that executing the story with unbiased inferences will benefit the company they work with. Objectively reporting a story benefits an increase of viewers, because the less a viewer feels like opinions are being pushed down their throat the more they will feel free to think for themselves allowing for a less hostile environment. This is an example of detachment which can either effect a reporter in a negative of positive way. However, many reporters believe that detachment, having a neutral position, can boost their credibility; Jon Katz, once CBS News reporter displays the historical element of being neutral:

“The idea of respectable detachment wasn’t conceived as a moral principle so much so as a marketing device. Once newspapers began to mass market themselves in the mid-1880’s …publishers ceased being working, opinionated journalists. They mutated instead into businessmen eager to reach the broadest number of readers and antagonize the fewest …Objectivity works well for publishers, protecting the status quo and keeping journalism’s voice militantly moderate.”

For a reporter to become involved in public life means that he or she dispels the idea of neutrality while creating a supposedly unbiased report become biased. That is the danger a reporter comes to face once they allow for public life to crowd within their standards. Subjectivity in reporting is not the only danger a reporter faces but also affiliation with the a political group. Suppose a reporter is a known member of a political group during the height of a presidential election, not only will viewers feel like the reporter is biased, but taking the chances on being in any political or social group can cause harm. Being in such a group can become dangerous if that group might become involved in a scandal which would result in that reporter’s reputation to be corrupted.

However, for a reporter to become publicly involved allows for individuality and moral views to be present. The lack of standards for any individual lessens the backbone of a person’s judgment by not having a definite opinion to define who they are allows for them to stand for everything and become an inactive citizen. Some reporters might feel that detachment is harmful because it may cause an individual to lose their values while becoming less involved in their community. However, they do still believe that their affiliation with a community organization won’t be seem within the way they give a report; accomplishing an objective report while being in an opinionated organization is accomplished by remembering that the goal of any reporter is to give the facts, and tell the story of any news that comes their way.