Media Chatter

I feel that the rating system the movie industry uses is a good way to decide what one is allowed to see at certain ages. Also, it lets one know if he or she would even want to view the movie based on how and why it was rated that way. Yes, the rating system is used to help ensure that certain ages do not view particular movies, but it is also used by those of age to decide if it is the type of movie they would be interested in.

Under age people need to try and understand that just because a movie is rated R or a CD is rated PG, this does not necessariliy make it a good movie or good CD . It is simply the fact that they are not allowed to view it or listen to it that makes them want to so bad. Most every young person wants to do things that they are not yet allowed to do. This rating system can be used by guardians to protect and shield their children from things that they may not want them to be introduced to just yet. I feel that movies theaters not allowing children of certain ages to view movies with certain ratings is a great idea. In this way, if the parent does not wish to protect their child or is not aware that their child is attempting these thing, the movie theaters can try to do so.

To conclude, I feel that the rating system is a positive thing and can help our community to some extent. It helps guide parents to let them know what a movie or CD or etc. is about. It should not be done away with at this point, if ever. To learn more about ratings with movies just click here

The movie rating system in America in comparison to England is slightly different. England’s movie rating system is: movies that can be viewed by all, these are rated as “PG”, movies that can only be viewed by people who are 12 or over, these are called “12”, movies that can only be viewed by people over 15, called “15”, and then movies that can only be viewed by people who are 18 and over, called “18”. All of the above ratings are very effective and are enforced by many cinemas in England. The cinemas that I have been to, all ask for ID if you look younger than the required age. Usually, if you are accompanied by a parent you will be able to watch any movie, regardless of the movies rating. The movie rating that most movies receive in England is usually assigned well with the content with the movie. Therefore, because of the strong re-enforcement by cinemas and the closely related content of the movie to the rating, I feel that the movie ratings in England should not be changed.

The movie rating system in England generally corresponds well with the movie that the rating has been assigned to. The movies that are assigned are closely assessed and in some cases ratings have been changed. I feel that the movie rating system should not be changed in England, because movies are closely analyzed and usually conform well to the rating of the movie.

I think the movie rating system is good for our society. We don’t like being caught off guard. For the most part, our society wants to know what to expect, and movie ratings provide that for us. Movie ratings offer an opportunity for parents to decide what movies are appropriate for their families to see together. Aside from actually pre-viewing the movie first and thus spending much more time and money, the rating system provides one of the best ways of ensuring that a movie is conducive to the values that you want your family to uphold.

However, in my younger years, I used abhor the rating system. Not so long ago, I can remember begging my mom or my friends’ moms to buy us tickets to “R” rated movies, because we couldn’t get in otherwise. Oh the shame of being accompanied by your proud mother up to the counter, where she would purchase one more ticket than your group of friends called for, and then inform you that she wanted to see the movie as well.

But even though I had to endure such earth-shattering humiliation, I believe that the rating system is a good way to inform moviegoers about what type of content is displayed in films.

The rating system in place now is in my opinion alittle less strict on they what they are rating than they used to be. I remember back when I was the kid shoot’em up movies I remember watching rated R shoot’em movies that had a lot less blood and grotesques scenes in it then than what is shown now. I remember what Saving Private Ryan and seeing all the grotesques’ scenes in there and think wow when was this allowed to be shown on tv. I remember the old Terminator movies where people were saying how violent they were and they nothing compared to the violent scenes on movies now.

Another thing movies, made for kids and rated PG and PG-13 and that are supposed to not have cussing in it does now. I have noticed more and more kid movies have scenes were cuss words have been slipped in.

I think the there should be a rating system that is a must. The system now is not mandatory but producers submit their movies to be rated. I think a mandatory regulation would be a great idea and away to rate movies for the national audience.

The movie rating system has been around for along time now and I do believe it is still effective. On the other hand I don’t think its marketed as well as it should be. I remember watching movie trailers on television and hearing a deep voice at the end saying, “Rated R” to scare off any child or preteen from wanting to see the film. Now the rating is practically flashed on the screen for less then a second, making the rating less important then it should be.

It seems that the movie industry is hiding the fact that a movie is Rated R because they realize the demographic is not as profitable. Some theaters have a very strict policy on carding minors trying to get into R Rated movies. Many films strive for a PG-13 rating so all teenagers can see the picture. Most horror films, which is a genre intended for adults, today are given PG-13 ratings. Doesn’t that rating go against the morals of all horror films which pride itself in being the poster child of the dreaded Rated R symbol?

Hollywood knows that if their film is rated NC-17 it will not be shown because most theaters in the nation refuse to receive or show those films. Movies like Robocop was given an NC-17 rating until the producers decided to cut the violence down so it would be “R.” Could this be considered censorship in a way? There are two sides to every coin and the rating system has its good and its bad but it seems that Hollywood is getting away with too much and at the same time regulated unfairly.

The current system for rating movies encompasses violence, language, sexual content, drugs, and adult themes, and gives recommendations and even barriers for who can see a movie.

I like the movie rating system. I think as time has gone on movies that would have been rated R have been rated PG-13, and the system has perhaps gotten a little more relaxed, but overall I think it does a good job of rating movies, and I think it is also good to set the minimum age limits to get into R rated movies.

There is always room for improvement, and I think our movie rating system could have more specific guidelines as to which movie gets into which category. Also, each movie should be considered individually, as some of these controversial issues may occur in a different context that would make them appropriate for younger audiences than would normally be recommended.

Overall, I think our movie rating system is sound and accomplishes its purpose. It gives an overview of the content and allows people to decide if they should or shouldn’t watch a movie. The standards are not unreasonable or overly strict, but I think if we aren’t careful they could become too relaxed as our society changes.

The movie rating system that the industry uses now is very efficient. I can remember times when I was younger and wanting to go see an R rated movie and not being old enough. The movie theater won’t let anyone under the age of 17 to see an R rated movie, unless an adult is present. I think the movie rating system is good right now and doesn’t need to be changed. I think they have set standards on the rating system which makes it basically impossible for anyone under 17 to see an R rated movie, unless with an adult.

I think the rating system is a good way to control what our children see at the movies. Children today are becoming more violent because of the movies that they watch. With this movie rating system parents are able to tell what movies are more violent than others and can be in control of what their children watch. The rating system is G which is for general audience, PG for parental guidance, PG-13 parents strongly cautioned, R is strictly restricted for anyone under 17, and NC-17 is no one 17 is admitted. I think the rating system is efficient in which parents can see and control what their children watch.

I do think that children are exposed to many violent movies and therefore with the movie rating system it can be controlled and be put to an end. There are websites that explain about why movies are rated and why some are not. All in all, I believe the movie rating system is a good way to control what our children watch and help keep that under control.

The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC rule that required stations to (1) air and engage in controversial-issue programs that affected their communities and (2) when offering such programming to provide competing ppoints of view. The Fairness Doctrine ended in 1987 after a federal court ruled that it was merely a regulation rather than an extension of Section 315 law.

Over the years broadcasters had argued that the doctrine forced many of them to play down controversial issues; they claimed that mandating opposing views every time a program covered a controversial issue was a burden not required of the print media.

Supporters of fairness rules insist that as long as broadcasters are licensed as publid trustees of the airways legal precedent permits the courts and the FCC to demand responsible content and behavior from radio and TV stations.

I think that the Fairness Doctrine stiffles freedom of speech. I think that the media should be able to present news however they see fit and if the audience is nieve enough to believe everything that they hear on tv then that’s their fault. It is the audiences’ responsiblity to be better informed and educated to realize when they are being mislead. I just believe that our society is becomming lazier when it comes to gaining knowledge. Many people just turn on the tv and expect for news to be fed to them on a silver spoon.

The concept of powerful media affecting weak audiences has been labeled the hypodermic-needle model. The hypdermic needle modeal is sometimes refered to as the majic bullet theory or the direct effects model. It suggests that the media shoot their potent effects directly into unsuspecting victims.

The limited or minimal-effects model emerged when social scientists began demonstrating that the media alone does not cause people to change their attitudes and behaviors. Minimal effects researchers contend that in most cases the mass media reinforce existing behaviors and attitudes rather than change them.

A response to the minimal effects theory, the uses and gratifications model, was proposed in the 1940s to contest the idea of audience passivity. Under this model, researchers studied the ways in which people used the media to satisfy various emothinal or intellectual needs.

With that being said, I disagree with the statement that media research has very little impact on changing our media institutions because theis media research helps students to understand where the concept and ideas of the media were formed and have evolved over time.

The movie rating system has changed dramatically over the years. What is PG-13 rated now, was R rated a while back. Film Ratings. are based on many factors in the movie such as curse words, violence, sex, etc… but today, it is normal to see some of the things that might shock us in movies which is why they are rated lower than what they should be and not to mention the fact that children who are under the age of 13 are not recommended to see PG-13 films but usually over half of the theatre is children under 13. With rated R films, a person is recommended to be at least 17 years old, but rarely does the theatres ID anyone to check and make sure of their age.

Should the movie rating system be changed?!?! Yes and no. Yes because of the fact that children who are getting in to these theatres without having to show an id are seeing things that maybe they don’t need to see until a later age, and No because it’s the way it is and if we change the movie rating system back to the way it used to be…a little more harsh on rating and more strict on preventing underaged viewers from seeing the film…it would make a lot of people unhappy and there would be a lot of arguments toward it. It definitely doesn’t need to get any more lenient with how things are done, if it could remain stable over a period of time, that would help too.

Overall I think our current movie rating system is okay, but it has its flaws. Some people make too much fuss over it when it shouldn’t be that big a deal. Most of the ratings seem okay. The only problem I have is with the PG-13 rating. It seems that some movies are labeled PG-13, but they are too bad to be in that category.

The G, PG, R, and NC-17 ratings are appropriate ratings for the movies that are grouped in their categories. I feel that these ratings warn parents, children, and teenagers enough so they will understand what each movie contains. Everyone knows that G specifies that a movie is suitable for everyone and that parents shouldn’t be worried about any inappropriate material in these films. Next, PG means that parental guidance is needed. Every parent is warned by this rating that the specific movie contains some suggestible content in which the parent may not be comfortable allowing his or her child to see. An R rating has adult material and parents are advised to learn more about the movie before taking their children to see it. For a movie with an NC-17 rating, only those over 17 years of age are admitted to see the movie. All of these ratings give enough warning to parents about some inappropriate films for children.

Most Americans know that an R rated movie contains some or all of these: language / profanity, sexuality, nudity, drugs, violence, etc. People also know that an NC-17 movie is an R rated movie taken to the extreme. Any parent in his or her right mind would know that a movie with either one of these ratings would be inappropriate for their children or their teenagers.

In my opinion, it’s the parent’s responsibility to judge which films are okay for their children to see, but as far as the PG-13 rating, there doesn’t seem to be enough warning. Many PG-13 films feel like R rated movies. They have even more bad language and sexuality than they did in the past. Take the movie Meet the Fockers for instance. I felt that I was watching an R rated movie during some parts of the film. I know that the movie probably wasn’t bad enough to be rated R, but perhaps it should have been. Maybe there should be another category for those movies that are too bad to be rated PG-13 yet aren’t bad enough to be in the R category.

Web sites concerning the movie rating system:

MPAA Movie Ratings

One man’s reasons for a new movie rating system

When I read the statement that A.J. Liebling wrote about the press, I forced myself to sincerely think about the meaning and decide whether I agree or not. I came to the conclusion that Liebling makes a good point in saying that the freedom of the press belongs only to those who own one. I believe that this statement should be taken into consideration.

I do not necessarily think that this theory is practiced; however I believe that it should be. The men and women that make news media their career, in most cases, have dedicated their lives to exposing and revealing the truth. Freedom of the press was an amendment developed to protect journalists, allowing them to expose the truth. Some people take advantage of this concept for selfish gain. Example: celebrities.

During the presidential elections in 2004, I began to realize and slightly resent the impact that celebrities have on the American population. Celebrities are no more qualified to express their opinions to the public than any average citizen. They should not have such a large impact on the public, but they do because they have the capacity to get their voice and opinions heard. Most do not have the training and education sufficient enough for such a powerful voice.

I believe that reporting the truth to the public is a job of the utmost importance: a job not to be taken lightly. It is a job that should be left to the professionals.

I believe the ratings system that is now used by the movie industry is not really accurate, but is as good as it is going to get. There is no reason to even attempt to change it. It is impossible to accurately assess every movie in exactly the same ways as all the rest. What is indecent and/or obscene can change depending on the culture or even town that is viewing it. Therefore, it is impossible to make a ratings system that would accurately cover EVERYONES beliefs! There are too many views out there. One person may think a movie should be rated PG and another may think that the same movie should be rated R because of the sexual orientation and actions of a character. Who is right? There is really no right answer. The best the system can do is assess a movie on simple things such as nudity, language, or sexual activity, however, even the ideas for ratings of even some simple things may be controversial sometimes.

One of the biggest examples that I can remember having to do with controversial ratings was when the movie Titanic first came out and some people thought that its PG-13 rating was not quite up to par with its content. I can remember being surprised myself the first time I saw the movie. But as with any other movie, there is going to be someone who thinks that the rating is wrong. It works both ways. The rating can too low or even too high! There is always going to be endless controversy when it comes to movie rating systems. This is because there really is no right answer. As I said earlier, it would be crazy to try and change somthing that is impossible to get right!

Movie ratings are more personal than they may seem to be. If parents are worried about it, they should watch the movie before their children and decide for themselves whether the material is appropriate or not!

After much thought and consideration, I finally decided that communications was the right major for me. I am sure that the fact that I was enjoying my communications class so much more than my science classes, which was my former major, aided in the decision.

This is my first semester as an official “communications major,” and I must say that I am enjoying my classes.

The only concern that I have about the media studies here at AC is that I may not get the hands-on experience that I might at a larger university. Although, my experiences so far have been rewarding, I believe there would be more opportunities to have hands-on experience at a larger school only because of the size. I learn better in an environment in which I am forced to learn through experience.

The media studies at Anderson College have so far treated me well. I am taking four classes in the communication field this semester and all of them are going well so far. Next semester I will be taking three more classes. This semester is my first semester with a communications major and taking the classes. In media and society I have learned about how the society that we live in is affected by the media and I learn things I never thought about. I have learned that things that affect us are so simple that we over look them and don’t even realize what was going on.

I am also taking a public relations class. In this class I am learning the basics to public relations and how companies and big multi-media corporations work to keep their publics happy. The class has really covered the basics to pr.

I am also in news writing and tv production classes. These classes have taught me the basics for writing a news article and putting a clip for a new station on tv. These classes are properly preparing me for the world of mass communication.

Many issues can be resolved through the merging of media industry and the academic institutions. The media can have a negative effect on children, it can also have a positive effect. For instance, the social learning theory was a study suggesting a link between violent media programs, and aggressive behavior. When we take an in-depth-analysis of the study we can see that if the media starts producing educational shows and games, children might respond in a learning/educational manor. This idea runs parallel with children becoming aggressive having viewed violent programs to children that have viewed educational media and games responding in a learning/educational manor.

Thus, as an idea I purpose that the media industry and academic researches study the effects of academic games, and television programs on children. We could then derive if the children learn anything from educational games or television programs. The academic researchers would use their department of psychology to investigate the effects of educational games, and what appeals to children of different ages. While the media industry would study the profit margin, and concentrate on making the educational games to be fun for children.

Therefore we can conclude that an issue that can be carried out both by media industry and academic researchers is, the effect of educational programs, and educational video games on children. Both industries could further investigate these effects on children of different ages. Thus, instead of the media industry and academic researchers in conflict, they would have merged together to form a media and academic resource that benefits them both.

There are several positive things about the media studies program at AC, as well as several things that I believe could use a change. First, I think that the college should offer a wider choice of classes. I think that it would be awesome to be able to take a class that I was completely interested in. I would like for more hands on experience, more interesting ways of learning, and better computer equipment.

The media studies program at AC could be improved. If the college would simply improve just a few things I believe that the program would be great! One thing that I think would be a good idea is an introductory to communications class that covers all concentrations of the major. This would help students to better choose which concentration that they are most interested in or even help them choose whether or not to stay in the major.

I also wonder sometimes whether or not we are looking at the media from the right perspective. Our school is a Christian school so we look at the media differently than a regular school. This is not always a bad thing, however I think that it does limit our experience just a tad because of our beliefs!In conclusion, the media studies at my school aren’t terrible, but there is always room for improvement!!

My main concern with the media studies at a school like Anderson, being a Christian school, is that we would lose our focus on studying the media. I am concerned that instead of analyzing the media, we would become judgmental and assume that the media is evil because it doesn’t always line up with our Southern Baptist ideals.

However, I believe that the leadership in place has a good concept on what it means to be a Christian institution studying a secular media, and not a theological dogma voicing its problems with society. I believe that in order to functionally study the media, we must keep an open mind and not pass judgment on the media.

On the other side of that pendulum, we must always question the media. I would be concerned if, in our efforts to be open to the media, we automatically accepted everything that it provides as truth. I believe that as a college, our state of media study is good and if the leadership in place commends its values to the future leadership, then our media studies program will be able to effectively study the media without condoning its ills and/or condemning its fallacies.

p.s. – it’s my birthday… thanks

I think Anderson College has a great media studies curriculum. Although this is the first class that I have taken in the media studies courses at Anderson. I think it has changed my view of the roles that media really does play on society, which I think was the point of the course. I think Anderson’s media studies is a lot better than I would have originally thought for such a small school, but I think that there are a few concerns with the media studies program.
The one concern that I would have is there aren’t many professors in communications at Anderson. I think this will make it a lot harder to learn because the great thing about having different professors is that you have different personalities and teaching styles. I think that having the same professors over and over might be harder to learn from although it would helpful when it comes to knowing what to expect the class to be like as far as grading. It also would help to have a more developed communications program with more concentrations.
Overall, I think that the media studies program is good and I look forward to taking more classes. I think especially this class would be a good class to make every student take just because the information taught is just good information to know that is relatable to things that are actually happening in today’s society.

A year ago I took a television production course at my college and it completely changed the way I viewed television as a medium as well as the media in general. I remember staying up to all hours of the night trying to complete a package due the next morning and feeling a sense of accomplishment from only having two hours of sleep the night before. The class gave me an appreciation of deadlines. Before this course I wouldn’t take deadlines seriously—if a test was the next day and I hadn’t studied for it I would simply not show up to the class. I would make up some poor excuse as to why I missed it and would take it some other time. TV production taught my that time doesn’t wait.

I believe hands-on education is the best way to learn a craft. Yes, a student can learn every thing there is to know in the history of media but it isn’t until that student is given the task of doing the work that they truly understand it. An aspiring painter can read every how-to book ever published but it won’t get him anywhere until he picks up a brush and touches the canvas.

A journalism or newspaper writing class not only offers education in how to write but also how to actively read articles or columns and assess if they are good or bad. I believe education is nothing when a student looks at a course as a grade and not life experience.

I think Anderson College. is pretty updated when it comes to media. Of course, there are many other things that we could have but don’t necessarily need. One of the best things here is the wireless internet, although sometimes it’s down more than it’s up or it’s extremely slow, but overall it is a good thing for the college.

I also like that we can call from anywhere on campus and the same number shows up. This is definitely good in many areas involving security. As any other college, AC tries to stay updated with the media advances and succeeds fairly well at doing so.

The only thing I wish we had here at AC is a keyless entry to the dorms. At clemson, the students just slide their id card across the scanner and the door opens. This way we wouldn’t have to worry about keeping up with keys or getting locked out because we left them up in the room. It would just make things a lot more easy
It seems like once you get “the thing” to have, there’s something better that comes along. Therefore, we can never be fully updated here at AC.

Media is messages that are distributed through the technologies, principally text in books, study guides and computer networks; sound in audio-tapes and broadcast: pictures in video-tapes and broadcast; text, sound and/or pictures in a teleconference. Media is very important in the life you live today.

Anderson College has a strong area of study for media, communication, and journalism. I know an alumnus that graduated from the media studies, and she shows great influence over people because of her knowledge in the media. She had great opportunities with an internship with the local news channel. I think that the college has given the students here great opportunities in the workforce to develop the skills they need to succeed.

A main concern about the media area of Anderson College is that they need to make themselves more known at the college. I understand they publish the newspaper for the college. As a student I never have read the whole newspaper, I only looked at the pictures. Personally I didn’t think the newspaper was interesting, so one thing I think the media area of the college can improve the newspaper. That will get the students involved and make them want to participate on many other things at the college, and make all the students informed about what is going on at the school.

I have only taken one class in media and communications at Anderson College, but in the class I have taken, I learned a lot. However, there are pros and cons to every class and every major at AC as well as at every other college. I feel that one way Anderson could improve media learning is to have more hands-on situations. Personally, when I have a hands-on atmosphere, I learn and understand the information much more.

The class blogs that we have conducted were very neat and something different that none other of my classes took part in. In this respect, I had hands-on experiences that went very well. However, I feel that even more must take place, even if it is just an elective class for most.

At the beginning of the year in my media class, we were asked to go to the movies together, but no one was motivated to go. I understand that there are scheduling issues. There could be a way, however, that we can incorporate short outings like this into class time in order to ensure that everyone can go and observe or experience media.

I feel that AC does offer great media classes and that communication majors are well prepared to enter into the real world; however, more hands-on experiences needs to occur for everyone, even elective students, to obtain sufficient knowledge about media; this is because everyone, not just communication majors deal with media everyday of his or her life.

One of my main concerns about media studies at Anderson College is a lack of diversity. I think the professors that we do have are excellent, but inevitably we are only seeing one approach in our learning. I think having several professors is very important because it more fully develops our thinking and learning as students of media.

Another concern I have with our media studies is that there isn’t a lot of hands-on learning. Lecture style learning is fine, and it is probably the quickest way to get the information out in a straightforward manner, but I think students would take away so much more from getting out there, experiencing the different aspects of media for themselves.

In some media courses, we do get practical experience and opportunities to put our skills to work, but often the level of frustration is elevated from having to share equipment and computers (or computer) among a class. It makes it very difficult to find a time to get in and get the work done. I almost always feel that my grade is lower because of technical difficulties or not being able to find a time that someone else isn’t using.

The concerns, however, are few compared with the achievements. I do feel that our media department prepares us for a career in media, and I feel that the professor we do have is current and aware of changing trends and things that interest students. I feel that AC media is doing the best it can with what it has been given, and overall I am satisfied with media studies at AC.

Deciding if media courses should be a liberal arts college curiculum is not up to me, but if it were then I would have to first analyze exactly what they were teaching.

Media courses as college curriculum are really nothing more than a form of social psycology. The entire purpose is to cause whatever desired effect you choose upon a large scale. Psycology classes are taught regularly at nearly any type of school. With this as a premise it is easy to see that these type of courses should be taught at nearly any institution whether liberal arts or technical. With the effect that these types of courses can have on the population as a whole it would almost be a detriment to society not to teach these classes wherever possible. It has always suprised me how little people see the ways that their lives are changed simply by watching a television show. I am constantly confused by the lack of limitations being used by the media when dealing with many things. They portray the idea that they show what people want to see, but in reality they only show people what they want them to see and the things they are showing people are degrading the mental patience and focus of today’s society.

I was loking through the survey topics on the The Kaiser Family Foundation web site and the The Pew Research Center for the People and the Pressand noticed that most of the topics discussed would never have even been made mention of 30 years ago. I remember when I was growing up maybe one in 30 to 40 children were diagnosed with this new problem called ADD. A disease that makes it difficult for certain people to concentrate. Now, nearly every child I meet has been diagnosed in such a way. I’m not say that television is evil and needs to be destroyed, but what I am saying is that the information we put into our brains is effecting how we act physically.

For this reason we should learn as much as we can about these forms of media communication and learn how they effect us and how we can live our lives without allowing the things we view to control us any longer.

Is media research actually effective in our media institutions? Many people complain that the research doesn’t make much difference in changing the content of our media. I say that some changes have been made such as the television parental guidelines that were placed on TV shows, but I will have to agree that there has not been an enormous impact on changing our media institutions. I feel like the research will never made a large impact because most of the time the research does not have any significant results. Yes, some studies have found that viewers’ aggression and violent television programs and movies are correlated, but they do not have a cause-effect relationship. Nothing has been proved for a fact.

Albert Bandura’s “Bobo doll” experiment , for instance, found that many children who watched adults beat up a Bobo doll did so themselves. Many people believe that this experiment shows that a subject who witnesses aggressive behavior in the media will be likely to imitate the behavior if there is a social reward or reinforcement (pg. 528 of the text). Bandura’s supporters agree with his social learning theory, but there are also people who do not agree with it at all. They feel like studies have not found any relation between media content and aggression. It’s true that many people watch violent television programs and movies and are not affected at all. They do not display aggressive behavior afterwards.

The psychological effects found in media research, as well as cultural approaches, in my opinion, will not really change our media institutions because there has not been enough proof related to either one. I believe that even if a lot of evidence were found relating violent television programs to viewers’ aggression, there still would not be any change. We Americans love television programs with bad language, sex, and violence. Such programs, as well as movies, give us guilty pleasures and provide an escape from our everyday lives. We enjoy these types of programs. Not all of us imitate the behavior we see on television or in movies. Not all of us will let the media distort our view of reality. We can be firm in our values and beliefs no matter what we watch or listen to in the media. We can make up our own minds about what we believe and what we will do. We do not have to be swayed by violent television programs or something like political news. We decide what we’re going to expose ourselves to (selective exposure) and decide what we’re going to do with what we receive from the media.

In conclusion, media research has helped us to understand the power of the media and warns us of what it can do to us viewers, but I don’t feel like it will significantly alter our media institutions. Our media institutions are just too powerful and influential, and we allow them to be. Most of us would not want censorship in the media. I think that our media institutions are fine the way they are. We just need to be aware of what we see and hear in the media and be careful about what we do with the content we expose ourselves to.

When we read the news, we take our own view point. We make our own interpretation and stance of the social problems that arise in the news. Well, at least we think we do… Is the news that we read twisted around and directed towards a bias view of its creator? This is a problem that some journalists try to eradicate by striving to be ‘neutral’. A definition of neutrality is, “not possessing any particular quality or revealing a particular attitude or feeling.” (Oxford Dictionary.) With this in mind, I feel that it is virtually impossible for anyone, even someone who has abstained from voting, to completely step aside, and forget their own ethnocentric view or withstand from taking part in individualism. Thus, I feel for a reporter or editor to completely be neutral they would almost have to ascertain inhuman characteristics, and completely withstand from any types of feelings and views, they ever had.

Hence, I know if I were a reporter that I would still vote, even though I would not be striving to maintain a neutral status, by putting my citizenship before my occupation as a journalist. I feel that I would tell both sides of the news and deliver stories with some neutral status. Therefore, I feel that the news we read maybe twisted and turned towards the view of the creator. However, I feel by not voting, that it would not eradicate the distortion of stories caused by the reporter or editor. The reasons I feel this, is because many other factors, such as: ethnocentrism, responsible capitalism, individualism, and small-town pastoralism will always with be with a reporter. Consequently, the factors that cause the reporter to sway off the neutral line, are ones other than not voting. These will result in a story which, might be not completely neutral.

If I were a reporter or editor, I would not quit voting because of my job. I believe that I could still be neutral eventhough I was a voter. This comes along with the job, that is, having my own opinions and beliefs but having to be neutral to one side and the other. When I take the job, I sign up for situations like this. I believe that no matter what a person’s job is, he or she has the right to vote. Our ancestors fought for this right, and therefore, we should take it seriously and utilize it. No one can tell us that we can’t vote or even shouldn’t vote. This is our right.

Because one has this right, though, an editor or journalist must understand where he or she has to stand in job situations. I believe it is possible for someone to vote and remain neutral when he or she is doing the job. Being neutral does not mean that one has to be numb to situations that arise in his or her own personal life. I feel that voting is personal and that this privilege should not be dismissed to demonstrate anything. In my opinion, it actually makes the reporter seem stronger if he or she can vote and still remain a neutral reporter. It shows that they understand their job and what comes along with it. By remaining neutral, they are conducting their job tasks well and will be respected even more. The public knows that they can trust what the reporter is saying in the future when neutrality is displayed. To conclude, one must not quit voting in order to remain neutral. In fact, just the opposite makes him or her seem like an even better reporter because they are able to take a stand in voting on their beliefs, yet, bring to the public various beliefs of others.

Much has been made about the voting practices of journalists and people in the media. Some try to use that information as fodder to accuse the journalist of bias or hypocrisy. That kind of information could possibly take away a journalist’s image of being neutral and objective and that could be hurtful to their career (unless you work for the New York Times ).

If I was a reporter, I would still vote. Why? Because even if everyone knew that I was Republican, I would still try to report with objectivity and get both sides of the story. But, just because the information about my voting practice had come out, I, and other reporters who have made their voting practices known, would be accused of being biased towards the party we vote for. Such is life.

I can say that I have had popular culture exposure from other countries, especially from living in England in 1987-1990. In fact, I can say that some of my fondest childhood memories come from England’s popular culture: mainly the kids game show Knightmare (this site being excellent, with history, and lots of sound and video clips), the cerebral game shows for adults, like The Crystal Maze, and even an import from the United States, Blockbusters. That isn’t all what I remember from England, but the game shows from there I loved, that was for certain. And the links to the game shows that I have provided are the ways these days that I get my exposure to popular culture of other countries. In fact, I would wager that the Internet, television and raido are the ways tha tmost of the people in the world get exposure to other countries’ pop cultures.

I don’t particularly remember this “news story,” but it was from our time; the Pepsi company had to deal with a hoax where people claimed that there were used syringes in Pepsi cans . Back in 1993, there was a report in the Seattle Times that said a retired meat salesman, Tex Tricklett, claimed that there was a syringe in a Pepsi can that he looked inside. Within months, other reports from Washington, Ohio and other aras of the country came in. The story gained steam to the point where the story was the number two AP story in the country, the first being the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.

The Pepsi Co. headquarters in Somers, NY, quickly handled this crisis by letting the FDA conduct inspections of their bottling plants and giving out news realeases to televsion news stations in order to try to prove that their bottling and canning practices were not responsible for the needle scares. On June 17th, 1993, they had supermarket survalliance video of a woman putting syringes into cans of Diet Pepsi. This wasn’t an isolated incident, as about 50 people were arrested all over the country for lying about tampering with store products.

It seems like Pepsi was able to get over this huge crisis and continues to be one of the biggest-selling soda brands in the world.

Some of the main criticism of the state of news today are ethical issues such as deploying deception, invading privacy and biased news reporting.

In terms of ethics, some people blieve in absolutist ehtics which suggests that a moral society has laws and codes, including honesty, that everyone must live by. This means that citizens, including members of the news media, should tell the truth at all times and in all cases. Some people take the side of situational ethics which promote ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis. In this case, if a greater public good could be served by using deceit, many journalists would sanction deception as a practice.

When it comes to the invasion of people’s privacy many journalists struggle with two key issues. Invading a person’s right to privacy often clashes with the public’s right to know of events of prublic importance and interest. When these two ethical standards collide, journalists usually err on the side of the public’s right to know.

Unbiased news reporting has seemed to become more of an issue especially in the wake of the last election. Whenever I hear of biased news reporting I think of Barbara Walters’ relinquishing of 20/20. She was being interviewed and someone asked her to compare the news reporting of today with how news was reported when she first began her career. Barbara Walters response entailed of how biased news reporting has become. She said that when she started that reporters simply gave the news but that now reporters are constantly adding their own opinions instead of just delivering unbiased news.

Despite these 3 criticisms of the state of the news today I must say that I do believe that the news is doing well to offer a wide variety of distribution channels when it comes to getting the news out to the public. The access of news today is not only limited to newspapers and a few stations on television but you can now access news online, on cell phones, and through several network and cable stations.

My main concerns with the state of news today is that it is not always totally objective. Some news stations favor different political parties. Some news channels bash the president and his political views. Other times news stations will bash the war effort when we have men and women over there fighting for our country. Things like this really tick me off when not the whole side of the story is told especially about the war.

Another concern of mine about the state of news today is the fact that if I am a PR person and I send a press release to a newspaper or magazine they have the ability to change my wording around and change the outlook of my company. Or if a journalist is doing a story on a company or a situation they can be non objective and put there opinions into the story and make the company look bad. Or they could do it the other way and around and get bribed into making a situation look better or a company look better.