Media Chatter

I believe that movie ratings can be decently judged in some cases, but some are really out of control. Movies such as Paramount Picture’s A Night At The Roxbury, has had some controversy in it’s rating. The movie consists of sex related humor, foul language, and drug content, yet the movie is rated PG-13. Personally, I wouldn’t want my kids that are thirteen and younger to be watching a movie with sex related humor and especially drug content. Drugs and sex are hurting people’s lives and shouldn’t be displayed to children thirteen years old. 

1998 Oscar winner, Beetle juice, displayed headless corpses, and also using foul language as the “F-bomb,” while grabbing himself in the crotch. The MPAA rated the movie as PG, which means for parents to urge to give “parental guidance” as it may contain some material not suitable for young children. Words that profane and actions they use in the video should definitely use parental guidance. 

In conclusion, the MPAA have been rating movies that should be carefully looked at. Most of the movies are old ones, where the new movies are being carefully checked to make sure nobody complains about their kids watching something unsuitable.

The movie rating system used in the United States was created in 1968, as a replacement to the Hays Production Code. The Hays Production Code simply gave approval or disapproval of a movie, where as the current movie rating system ranges from G to NC-17. This rating process is completely optional and no filmmaker has to submit their film for a CARA rating, although this rating is optional most filmmakers participate in it because many movie theaters will not show a film that has not been rated.

The current movie rating system should be changed because movies are not rated approiatly as it is now. I believe this to be true because the majority of R rated films that have come out in the past few years should not have been rated that harshly. Many of the R rated movies I have seen in the year leave me wondering why they were rated that way, nothing was shown to make me think it was an R rated movie. Also, any teenager that cannot get into a R or NC-17 movie can watch the same “graphic” material on television so either television needs to have more restrictions or movies should not be rated so harshly.

Although movie ratings have worked well for many years and provide security for a parent trying to find a suitable movie for their child, I believe the rating system should be changed mildly and have more specific standards for each rating.

Growing up, my family used the movie rating system to pick what movies we did or did not watch. “G” was the primary rating of our movies. As a little girl, I watched cartoons about princess’ and animals. Now young girls watch movies about older teenage girls. This is not necessarily bad until they begin to want to be older. With the desire to be a teenager, they begin acting like one and doing things that they think a teenager would do. They become infatuated with growing up. For example- how many 5 and 6 year olds are obsessed with Hannah Montana? It may be a Disney show, but often times her songs have messages that promote being “rebellious.” I do not want to sound like a paranoid adult, but it is important that we pay attention what children are watching and being influenced by.

Over the past 10 years, what we knew as “R” movies have now slipped down to “PG-13”. This scares me. Too many children’s movies now include cursing, sex and violence. I’m not one to be strict on no violence, but when a child is exposed to too much at an early age- they mentally cannot handle it. Children are supposed to live innocent lives. When pre-teens see sex in movies they see it as something “cool” and acceptable. I’m not saying that we need to shelter children, but I believe that we should slowly expose them to mature material so that they can clearly differentiate what is right or wrong for someone their age.  Simply changing standards of what makes a movie “R” or “G” can help dilute this problem.

The writer A. J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one. I must say that in regards to this statement, I agree to a certain extent, but for where our world is now, I completely disagree. The freedom of press is part of our Nation’s First Amendment. It states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Back when this amendment was written is when I would agree with Liebling’s statement because in order for anything to be printed back in that day and age, someone must have had a press or have had access to one. But with the type of technology we now have, the internet especially, I completely disagree with him.

The internet is the key factor for my decision in disagreeing with Liebling. The internet has made a way for almost anyone in society to publish what they believe or feel strongly about. And with how available and accessible internet access is for any American Citizen, anyone can print what they feel. With sites such as www.blogger.com, www.blogspot.com, Facebook, and Myspace to name a few, press is everywhere and for anyone. With sites such as these, people are able to write and publicize whatever they feel. There are literally no limitations. Now whether or not someone’s work gets publicized or promoted to the point where several people will read it depends on two things in my opinion: 1. How well known the writer is, and 2. If the the topic is relative and something the public wants to read. Granted, there are so many people out there with so many different interests that if you write anything at all, it’s going to be read by someone. To make what you write popular is a completely different story though.

The “Freedom of Press” is a right that we as Americans have had for a while now and I believe that only within the past 20 years or so we have started utilizing this right. Back in Lieblings days, I agree that to have this freedom you would have had to of had a press, but with where our world is now with certain technology, the internet especially, I believe that almost anyone can have this freedom and I believe that all Americans should exercise as much as possible.

The current movie rating system is a system that rates movies from a list of different classifications. There is a group of people who watch the films to decide on the rating of the movie. After viewing the movie they all vote on what rating should be placed on the film. The ratings include G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.

The rating system was created in 1968 to guide viewers on which movies were good to see. Since then there have been only a few changes to the system. I think that there should be a new system put in place to better categorize the movies that come out in theaters today. I feel that the ratings for some movies are not up to the best standards for young adults and children. There are plenty of movies that are rated PG-13 that should have a stricter rating of R. It is important that these critics rate the movies to the right standard so that our children are not introduced to things too early in life.

The system could divide the rated R rating into two different categories. The first one could have movies that are worst than PG-13 but does not have all the characteristics of a rating of R. The second category would be the films with all the characteristics of a rated R film. This would better the system by providing a better division in the rated R rating.

When it comes to the statement said by A.J. Liebling, my feelings are split between these comments.  The statement in question is that freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one.  If looking at this from an American point of view there is no question that that is completely wrong.  We, as a nation, were founded on the bases that it is wrong to silence any voice no matter their opinion, everyone is created equal, and that even the smallest voice is to be heard.  This right is protected by the constitution and clearly says that we have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.  The press can say, print, and publish anything that they see fit as long as they did it in a legal manner.  The press has a job to do which is to inform the public and people of what is going on around our great nation.  On the other side of this debate, I believe he is right when he said if you do not own one.  The owners of the radio, television, and newspaper companies can and do control what is put on the air waves and on paper by what they deem as important and right.  The owners claim that they have an unbiased opinion when it comes to their work but as we have studied in earlier chapters, just by someone picking what to write about and what to put on the news is in a way being bias towards one story or another.  The stations that say they are for the Democratic Party will more that likely do news praising how good the democrats are and will also bash and point out all the things the Republican Party has done.  Newspapers in local communities do have a very large pull with their ways of writing stories and their use of persuasive journalism.  All in all I would have to say that Mr. Liebling was correct in stating that the press is belonged to those who owned it.  The bosses/owners of these great corporations can choose what the greater public hears based on their own opinion.  This is not right when looked at from a constitutional standpoint but it is true. 

The media has a strict line to follow when it comes to the content they can and can’t put out. Often times lawsuites follow many news casts and production companies for the incorrect information or information that is not true. People can say and misuse what they either mean to say or what they think they have been told and end of getting in trouble.  This is called a libel suit. The media today is especially liable for the content that they put out. They have to be very careful for what they say in that it is very easy to misuse information.

Movie producers and production companies as well as tv shows have to be particularly careful. They have to limit the sexual content, language and violence that they issue to viewers. Music companies also have to be careful. Many times Artists often remake a certain song and have to ask for rights from the original artists to be able to do a remake. Entertainment companies use lyrics that degraid another artists and end up getting in a lot of trouble for the things they say about the artists. The FCC has certain restrictions that they put on record companies to limit their use of language and use of discriminating lyrics.

The limits will always be pushed ny either television, the radio, movie companies, and recording agencies to see just how far they can go. Even newscasts are having pressure put on them for interviews they take, pictures they use, and for the location of their newscasts. Regulations wil continue to be pushed as long as competition continues to grow among entertianment.

Movie ratings range from G to NC-17.  They go from all ages being admitted to audiences under 17 not being allowed to view the movie, even with adult supervision.  There are also ratings such as PG, PG-13, and R.  I think the movie rating system is set up in a way that adjusts well to the public.  Parents can monitor children viewing movies.  When teenagers go to the movie theaters, parents do not have to worry about them watching a rated R movie without their consent. 

The movie ratings are set on a scale that clearly separates movies and their content.  When watching a G-rated movie, one does not have to worry about seeing material that would be in a PG-13 movie.  The system we have now is effective for the movies for our generation.  I’m sure as times change and movies start to push thier limits further, the rating system may not be as effective.  I think the way the society is today, the rating system is very efficient.

Does the freedom of the press really only belong to people that own one?

My answer is both yes and no. the reason for me saying yes is because, there are T.V. and Newspapers such as The New York Times, that are owned by a group of share holders and they control everyone who works on their staff and they control what goes into there media. The reason for the no is frankly the internet, now with blogs such as Media chatter. With the internet as such a vast source there is no way one person can control all the information out there.

the question presented currently, is should a shield law be in place to protect the sources and the journalists who publish articles of controversial nature.  judith miller, a journalist for the new york times recently experienced events that would have been less inconvenient had a shield laws been in place.

a shield law  as defined by Wikipedia, is any “legislation designed to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the newsgathering and dissemination process” and are acts that would protect journalists and the work they print or produce.  as stated by the washington post, 

Overall, this bill would be an advancement in safeguarding the work of journalists. That’s why The Washington Post Co. and other media organizations have lobbied hard to get the Free Flow of Information Act passed. The Senate should put the bill’s passage at the top of its to-do list when it reconvenes in September.

The Fairness Doctrine was passed in 1949 as an attempt to ensure that both sides of all controversial issues were covered equally in the media.  Radio and Television stations are owned by the government, therefore they do have the ability to pass this doctrine.  Many officials were worried that radio and television stations were often too biased towards one political viewpoint over another.  In such cases, the political viewpoint they favored received much more coverage than the other.  However, the Fairness Doctrine is in fact “Not Fair” and even contradicts the Freedom of Speech Law.  Therefore the Fairness Doctrine should be reviewed.

In The United States Constitution, the government guarantees American Citizens the freedom of speech.  The freedom of Speech amendment is enforced to enable people to speak their mind with out hindrance, and especially with out fear of punishment.  However, the Fairness Doctrine makes restrictions about what television and radio stations can talk about.  This law states that they must cover all political viewpoints equally.  This is unjust!  According to the freedom of speech amendment, the stations should be able to talk about whatever they want.  The Fairness Doctrine clearly should be stopped, because it is not constitutional at all.

Instead of enforcing the Fairness Doctrine, the government should just be more careful about which stations they allow to operate.  They should take surveys of the stations before permitting them to begin work.  This way they can ensure that there will be an equal amount of stations that are liberal and conservative.  If this is so, controversial topics should be covered equally in the media.  Being more selective about which stations can actually air programs will ensure that all sides of the news are covered.

By carefully choosing the stations which are allowed to air public programs, the media will not have to use the Fairness Doctrine.  The radio and television stations will pretty much cover both sides of controversial issues equally without being told to do so.  This is a good way to put the Fairness Doctrine to an end, because it is simply unconstitutional and unfair!

Media programs are such a vital part of media production and studies at the college level. A lot of the times the problem with these types of classes and majors is that they are not hands on enough. That can be very detrimental to the way in which a student learns. How can a student learn if they cannot be involved in what they are supposed to be learning? Too many times teachers just lecture and dont get involved in their students education. That may be part of the reason many students dont feel as if they have accomplished or learned anything, due to the fact that they havent been involved in what they are learning.

There are many ways in which this can be fixed. One is for the professors in the media department to reachout to their student and try to get them involved with what is going on in their classes. Whether it be through class participation, or through projects and assignments that are goin to challenge students with what they have learned. But also to give them some motivation, and possibly a sense of accomplishment about what they have learned. However it cant just rest on the teachers and professors shoulders, the students have to want to be involved in what is being taught.

Any teacher can just lecture and give notes, and any student can just show up to class and sit. Regardless it is goin to take more of an effort of preparing on the teachers part, and more of a wllingness to learn on the students part. This not only applies to Media classes, but to all types of learning.

-Robert Stubblefield

Films are constantly being released and shown throughout more than 150 countries and American television programs are broadcast in over 125 international markets.  The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its global counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) supply and serve as promoters.  The U.S. motion picture industry offers most of home entertainment products which are seen in millions of homes world-wide. 

Movies are rated by parents who are involved in the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA).  Each member watches the films, next there is a group debate, and later there is a vote on its rating.  The members of CARA use the same principle as parents when rating films.  Films are rated from G, PG, PG-13, NC-17, and R, depending on the theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug.

When I was in high school I always had to get my mom to buy my tickets to scary or action movies, due to I was always too young for the ratings.  In high school you mature and not everyone is seventeen or eighteen till their senior year.  Also, shows like Soap Operas, CSI, Law and Order, or even your favorite series that come on cable has blood, violence, some nudity, sex and drugs, and language.  Therefore, I believe the rating system should be changed for movies rated NC-17 and R, for they are rated unfairly.  Most teenagers experience far worse throughout their high school career, than movies released that are rated NC-17 and R.

What A.J. Liebling said about freedom of the press belonging only to those who owned it was very true at one time in history but now that so many things are available anyone can have and own their own form of press. So in other words I disagree with what Mr. Liebling said. With all of the different forms of the press that there owning one is fairly easy. Anyone who blogs, has their own myspace or facebook account owns a portion of the press. Blogging is the most commonly way of owning a portion of the press there are easily over 135, 228 blog sites featured on this website. Which means that there are easily over 135, 228 different things that you could possibly blog about, and that also means that over 135, 228 different people own a portion of the press.

Take for example how many people have become famous off their blogging websites. The onion news originated as a blog itself. Even though the onion news is all satirical it’s absolutely hilarious. It’s one of the funniest things to read especially after hearing/watching all the depressing news that comes on television. Blogging is a crazy way for you write about your life and let people know how you feel. Blog it up

Judith Miller is an author and Pulitzer-Prize Winning former investigative reporter.  She was a great New York Times reporter.  Now is part of the staff at Fox New Channel.  Her coverage of U.S government officials, especially the Bush administration’s conclusion of Iraq’s alleged weapons of Mass Destruction program, turned her into a conspicious media person.  Also she was involved in the Plame Affair.  The work she did was not true.  The New York Times publicly apologized for her false reports.  Miller lost her job for this and announced her retirement from New York Times on November 9, 2005. 

Judith Miller’s lawyer’s believed that it was pointless to put her in jail because, she would never tell a confidential source.  I agree with her lawyers.  To say that you had to be put in jail for defend your rights and doing your job is wrong.  I believe the only reason she was prosecuted was because it was a government official, but even that is wrong.To learn more of Judith Miller and the federal shield law to protect reporters you can visit If you want to know more of Judith Miller you can visit http://www.judithmiller.org/

Judith Miller was a reporter for the New York Times who spent twelve weeks in jail in 2005 for refusing to name a source.  Miller finally testified before a federal grand jury after her source gave her permission.  The editor of the New York Times said that the paper stood behind Miller and her decision not to reveal her source.  In her case, there was no federal shield law in place.  Although, the senate recently reviewed the Free Flow of Information Act  which states that any prosecutor who wanted to compel a journalist to reveal a source would first have to exhaust all alternative remedies.  As of this moment the senate has yet to make a decision on the act. If this act were to become a law it would mean greater confidentiality for a journalist’s source as well as an easier “work environment” for all journalists.  Without the fear of prosecution sources would be more likely to come forward with valuable information.  For most investigative journalists this would make at least a part of their jobs a little bit easier.  The Free Flow of Information would almost guarantee the aninimity of a journalist’s source and thus prevent a case like Judith Miller’s from occuring again.

   If I owned a community newspaper and had to formulate a policy for my editors about which letters could appear from readers in a limited space on my editorial page, it would most likely have to be a strike one.  The reason being that it is entirely to easy in this day and age to offend a person.  Not only is it to easy to offend a person but anyone these days is looking for a way to file suit against someone just to make money its quite sickening.

   I guess the type of letters I would allow would be ones with specific ideas on certain topics on how they would like to see something in the community changed or how they think something or someone might better from the suggestions.  Topics on life changing events, people with stories of heroism, and even topics of things that are affecting the community in a negative way with personal responses of how people feel about it are ideal.  Though I would let the Letters be diversely they would still be censored very closely.  I would be opened to hearing any single persons’ letter but i would only publish it as long as it meets a couple standards.  It could never slander anyone’s name in or outside the community, like if it was a straight attack at someone innocent or had no idea of what was going on.  Another would be that i really wouldn’t put any persons’ religious views in the newspaper because I strongely believe that you cannot mix religion and politics its just unethical.  Not only that but it tends to be very bias from people and could lead back to the first rule of not offending anyone.  

   Along with these two standards I feel i would be acting as a censor in this situation.  the reason being that there would have to be just because of all the slander, fussing, and mass confession that could come from it.  Though I know you can’t please everyone and there might be someone that isn’t pleased with something written all the time but the paper would have to be protected from accusations, slander, lawsuits, and many other issues that could put damage on the paper and the staff.  Therefore I strongly believe that there would need to be censorship and i feel that that would be my responsibility to make sure i protect the paper and the staff from any of the issues i had mentioned earlier and  that’s how it would have to be if i ran a community paper.

The movie rating system in our society today is extremely flawed.  There are five basic ratings.  G,PG,PG-13,NC-17,and R.  Everyfilm that is released into theatres must have a rating attached to it.  The G rating is mainly for kids and R for adults.  That is how it is supposed to be, but not how it is in the United States.  Movies such as the Little Mermaid that are made for children and recieve G to PG ratings and filled with sexual jokes and humor that is not fit for a young child.  Movies that are PG-13 are often littered with foul language and sexual scenes and in some cases nudity but these movies do not get an R rating.  This is an outrage and society should do something to fix this.  The media is saying this movie is ok for your kids to watch but in reality it is not.  Many movies are horrible in terms of content but are just short of getting an R rating which is just wrong.  Sure its hard to determine what is offensive and what is not but there needs to be a set rule.  If a movie shows any type of nudity, uses any type of profanity, or deals with drug use it should automatically recieve no rating less than NC-17.  The media is taking advantage of the rating system by getting lesser ratings so that more people will go and see there movies thinking that they are not harmful to their children.

    The movie rating system that we know of has five rating system. These ratings are to help warn parents and anyone else that wants to know of what kind of material are in these movies. It can help keep kids from material that should not be seen. Starting off with the rating that can be seen by all is “G” which stands for general audiences and all ages are admitted. “PG” stands for parental guidence sugggested. The “PG” movies might have content that may not be suitable for young children according to “Media and Culture.” The “PG-13″ rating is the next movie rating which means parents strongly cautioned and there might be material innappropriate for children under 13. “R” stands for restricted and this means it contains some adult material such as nudity or a lot of violence. Usually to get into one of these movie you have to be atleast 17. The last movie rating is NC-17, which stands for no one 17 and under admitted. According to “Media and Culture”, “many movie chains in the mid-1990’s refused to carry NC-17 movies fearing economic sanctions and boycott their customers, religious groups, and other concerned citizens. There have been some movies that have been classified as a rating of NC-17 such as “clerks” and “Eyes Wide Shut” but the directors agreed to change or cut sexual scenes to make it an R rating.

    It seems like the ratings for the current movies are a bit off from what they should be. I have seen movies that their ratings could either be lowered or highered. For example, there are some PG-13 movies that definitly need to be changed to an R rating movie because of either the foul language that is used, sexual content, or violence. There are also a few movies I have seen, not many but they had the rating of PG which seemed fine to be the rating of G. These movies are preventing children from seeing the movies they want. With the ratings they are helping us know what movies are suitable for us or for the children. If the movies are not mature enough for the young ones to see then they don’t need to be watching it because these movies could influence violence or sexual situations. These movies could make one feel as though they need to go out and fight or say bad words. Parents are very thankful for these movie ratings and even the kids can’t stand it, they will one day understand why we have such ratings.

Remember when you where 16 and the newest horror movie was just released and as you and your friend waited in line thinking that you are about to see the scariest movie of all time the clerk stopped you and said “I’m sorry but you have to be 17 to purchase a ticket to view this movie because its rated R”, So you had to settle for a PG-13 movie. These ratings come from the MPAA, and it does do a good job of rating movies.

Some people mainly parents flip out because of some of the movies that their children go and see, and then they turn and blame the rating system, but most of the responsibility comes from the parent. If the want to know what their child is going to see in the movie then they can do the research themselves. Here is a perfect example, The Saw movies all of them are rated R according to the MPAA. But how many parents still purchased the tickets for their children ranging for the ages of 12-16 but then flipped out when the movie was released on DVD because of the graphic violence in the movie. If those parents would have done the research the problem could have been avoided.

Now theaters are starting to say that if a child is under the age of 17 they must have an adult with them in order to watch a rated R movie. So if someone ask me what do I think the movie rating system, and should it be changed? I would answer with a No! Because they are doing their part in rating the movies the way they should be rated, but the parents have to do their part in honoring the rating system.

If I owned a community newspaper and had to formulate a policy for my editors about which letters from readers appear in a limited space on their editorial page, I would eliminate the horrendous letters which are sent in to denounce and continually put down and discourage the individuals on my staff.  Let me explain…

As an owner, it would be my responsibility to ensure that the entire staff was functioning in the area that they are best in; I would also be in charge of constantly assessing how overall media and people were improving/needed improvement within the area of formulating and delegating a newspaper.

One of the worst things a leader can constantly see is persistent negativity and discouragement from those who are not a part of the game plan of the newspaper staff.  

Truthfully, as to whether or not I would be a censor in this situation works hand in hand – I would hire a personal assistant to monitor e-mails, posts and such and ‘filter’ them before I read them myself.  

Why? you may ask – my job as editor involves me taking care of my staff, not replying to recalcitrant and unneeded posts and letters.  I must publish news, media information and both sides of stories.  As a newspaper editor, neither myself nor other readers need to read the brutal editorials by those who may heavily dislike a particular section of media.  Must the truth be presented?  By all means; however, there is a specific and hard line to define between delivering true news and news which will add ‘gas to the fire.’

Judith Miller was a Pulitzer Prizewinning investigative reporter for The New York Times. She was convicted for defending reporter’s rights to protect confidential sources and spent eight five days in jail. Today Judith is a strong supporter of the Federal shield law. The federal shield law is a law to protect the relationship between reporters and their sources from the public’s right to know. She also writes for The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and New York Sun. Appearing on television as a commentator on national security for counterterrorism.

I believe that the United States should definitely have a federal shield law, to protect the reporters today. It is none of the public’s business to know where the reporters get their information. The reporters are just doing their job and are doing what they need to to just get the job done. Reporters should never be punished, especially how harshly as Judith Miller was, because like I already stated they are just doing what there boss is tell them. Getting the story, at whatever expense it cost to themselves.

Judith Miller is an American journalist. She was a prominent New York Times reporter with access to top U.S. government officials. Judith Miller spent eighty-five days in jail because she refused to testify about her confidential sources in connection with the leaked identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. She left the paper in November 2005. On September 7, 2002, Miller and fellow New York Times reporter Michael Gordon reported that Iraq “stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hint for materials to make an atomic bomb.” For proof of this she cited unnamed “American intelligence experts’ and unnamed “Bush administration officials.” Judith Miller went to jail for refusing to testify in the Valerie Plame scandal and reveal her conversations with Scooter Libby. She was criticized for becoming too close with the Bush administration sources. Since Judith has left jail she has been advocating the enactment of a Federal “shield” law to protect the relationship between reporters and their sources and the public’s right to know. 

 I think that the United States should have a federal “shield” law to protect reporters. News gatherers should be protected from subpoenas for a variety of reasons. If these news gatherers cannot guarantee that confidentiality is promised to the sources then those sources will refused to provide the information that is often critical to important investigative reporting. Some state courts, for example, have interpreted the First Amendment and/or their state constitution’s equivalent to offer protections for news reporters. More than 30 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws protecting news gatherers from unjustified subpoenas. Judith Miller is not the only news reporter that this has happened to. I believe that there should be Federal “shield” laws protecting reporters.

Personal expression is something that we as Americans take pride in.  We can say just about whatever we like, and we are protected by the Constitution in it. But there are some times when these expressions go too far.  One example, that is very obvious, is Kanye West’s comment about George Bush’s reaction time to help New Orleans.

Before I go too far, George Bush may or may not care about a certain race, but that does not hold true of my feelings, nor is it what this post is about.

Let’s set the scene:  Mike Meyers and Kanye West are participating in a live TV fundrasier for Hurricane Katrina relief.  The date is September 2, 2005.
Here is a link to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIUzLpO1kxI

First off: Mike Meyers is speaking calmly. Kanye… is a trainwreck.  It is difficult to watch as Kanye stumbles over words and obviously is not reading from a script.  Meyers tried to bring West back in subtly, and then, the now infamous line is uttered randomly by West.
“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.“

What just happened? Meyers is able to sputter out “Please Call” as Chris Tucker, a fellow comedy actor, is shown and shocked by West’s comment.

This went too far.  West’s comments are protected by freedom of speech, but the simple statement clearly went too far.  The situation was not the time nor place, and the reaction by his fellow celebrities shows that they did not approve of the time or place either.

Now maybe it is true, and George Bush does not care about black people, but regardless the comment was explicitly inappropriate.

I remember watching this and hearing about it later, and thinking “Did he really just say that?!? What was he thinking!”

Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to remedy the situation.  A delay was  used on the broadcast, but the person “on the buzzer” to edit “did not realize the West had gone off script,” says Washington Post.  Many people were at fault, from West, to the apparantly deaf delay controller.  The West Coast got to experience a censor over the presidential comment, but the East Coast was forced to suffer through the whole thing.

One remedy is this: Do not get performers who are known for their arrogance and controversy to be a speaker in a relief fundraiser, and if so- listen carefully!

Films are rated by the MPAA in a way that is supposed to be for a parent to use for good judgment for their children to watch, but is the MPAA doing its job the way they should? No, they are financed by the film industry and their standards are changing all the time because of marketing techniques that the industry has adopted.  Many people do not agree with the ratings that the organization give too many of the movies that are out today.  On the MPAA’s website it states that it will give a movie a rating of PG-13 if it shows only “brief nudity” as long as the nudity is not sexually inclined. So you only have to be thirteen to see pornography in the movies but you have to be 18 to buy it in the stores. What is going on? Albeit I do agree that the parents should study the movie that their child is going to see before hand and get its relative theme before allowing them to go, but I do not agree on the rating system itself. I think it is a primitive rating system and desperately needs to be revised. They should go to some sort of point system that has a set formula and calculates a rating for viewers instead of just giving a broad rating such as R, or PG-13. On website that has taken this step is kids-in-Mind, on this site they analyze a movie and give it a series of 3 numbers (ex. 4.7.2). The First number rates sex and nudity, the second number rates violence and gore, and the third rates profanity. This is a great system and takes the guessing out of movie ratings.

If I owned a news paper and had to formulate a policy for my editors, I would eliminate opinionated articles. That is, all articles that are biased. To me, a newspaper is suppose to present, and state, just the facts. I would not want my newspaper to be known for its opinionated journalists. Some newspapers today appeal to conservative, and liberal, views. News should just be straight facts…Not sugarcoated, not hyped up and no ones personal opinions. People who read my paper should be to read an article, contemplate the facts and come up with his/her own conclusion(s). To me, a biased newspaper is not news at its best; because news at its best allows the reader to formulate their opinion of what was read.

I would not be acting as a censor in this situation because, the people who submit their articles have stated their opinions. My newspaper is not their only outlet to say what they feel needs to be said. Censorship means cutting out something. I am not cutting anything out, I just simply choose to put non-biased articles in my newspaper. I feel that people should be able to think and express themselves without the influence of an article in a newspaper.

The current movie rating system created by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has helped give parents and individuals a guideline to follow on knowing what may be included in a film. The movies that are being created in the past few years seem to push the limits more than how they were written when I was younger. Yet, I do think the system is fair and gives an accurate starting point of how to judge the contents of a movie.

The categories different genres expanded from just G, PG, R, and X to include PG-13, NC-17, and unrated. This was created to appease the many disgruntled movie goers who did not agree with the original system and was also designed for movie makers to have more opportunities to explore the usage of foul language and sexuality gamut in film making.

After much consideration, most films seem to manage to properly fall into one of these categories avoiding to surprise the audience with unwanted footage. Other reasons to not judge the rating system so harshly, includes the many resources we have at our disposal. There are many movie rating websites that include what foul language or sexual content one might encounter in a movie. A potential customer can access websites utilizing their same mindset whether it be a parent’s mindset, an individual with a religious background, or curious viewer to enable them to know, without a doubt, what they are paying for. With all of the provided guides and information out there, a movie goer should not be surprised by what they see at the theatre.

It was hard to be cool in middle school.  Everything we wanted to do was off limits to us because of our age.  When my mom took me to the movies to meet friends, I would have her drop me off at the side so that just maybe they would think I had hitched a ride with some older, cooler friend.  The worst part, however, was once we got inside and had to find a movie that we were old enough to see.  I remember when Scream came out, and I was dying to go to the movies to see it, but it was rated R, and I was only in sixth grade.

At that time, of course I thought that I was mature enough to see it.  However, when it came out on video and I finally convinced my parents to rent it for me, I didn’t sleep for days.  I wasn’t quite old enough to understand how unrealistic the situation was, and how unlikely this was to happen in real life.  I also did not understand that just because the people in the movie were sexually active as teenagers, used profanity, and smoked and drank did not mean that this was the norm.  Eventually, we all grow out of that phase where popular movies influence our ideas about what is “cool,” but until we are mature enough to distinguish between fact and fiction, we should be sheltered from unethical behavior.  Movie rating systems, I now understand, protect us from what we are not mature enough to see.

The movie ratings–G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17–distinguish between all types of movies, ranging from appropriate for children of all ages to no one under 17 allowed.  I think that the movie ratings accurately distinguish between immature and mature audiences, as long as they are enforced.  It is easy to forget how much we need the rating system, but both in theatres and at rental stores, employees should remember to ID young people in order to protect them.

   I strongly believe that having hands-on, practical-skills courses such as news reporting, advertising copywriting, and TV production belong in liberal arts college and not just a mass communications college.  the reason being that it is a great thing to experience not only for the mass communication majors but for anyone who thinks they might like to try something new for an elective or what ever.  When you think about it as well not only would it be good for a student to have the option to experience something new it also could help with their future plans as well.  What i mean by this is that though it might not be a students selected major it can still offer great insight on how to present them selves professionally and interact with others just as much.

  Along with helping one with goals to prepare them self it also gives great insight on how it works in the real world.  Though one might never pick up a news report and read it to a monitor or sit down and produce an ad for a huge multimillion dollar company, these professions still affect them to some extant.  With having some knowledge about Advertising, news reporting, and TV production it could help them understand how the world is working around them.  With that in mind it can give a better understanding on how these and many other professions in the mass communications affect them and could help someone see where exactly these people that are doing these mass communication jobs are coming from and maybe give one a little more appreciation for the people that are doing their jobs to supply others with the news and entertainment.

I am a communications major at Anderson University and there are good and bad points. The TV production classes which involve collecting footage and making videos, need more cameras. When you have two classes both with projects due for the same day, the demand for cameras is so that students have to delay their work until they are able to find a camera. Although this may be the case, the editing software available is of the highest level.

Another class very popular with communication major students is the culture and media class. Students learn about the history of each different media and how they affect our media. The classes are a good size which allows the students to have a more one on one relationship with the professor. However, Anderson only has the one professor for media. This means that if the professor is ill or away then the classes cannot go ahead. The professor has to also divide their time between each of their students from all different parts of the media degree.

Hopefully in a few years time the media department will have grown at Anderson. The more students that are interested in the Media degree then the more it will grow. The facilities need to improve first and foremost. Once more students choose to take the classes then more professors can be added