fox news bias

The issue: After an intense campaign that cost more than $75 million, California's voters have approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, dealing a huge blow to the gay rights movement and setting the stage for another round of court battles over the volatile issue.First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties. Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause. interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

Fox News Admits Bias!
http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

"The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans." Getting one of this country's most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message."

As this article states, while they claim to be fair an balanced, many of the stories from Fox News site are slanted one way or the other. FAIR themselves claim that Foxnews is the most biased name in news. I decided to try another news source to compare the article with theirs. I found another article on the same subject easily and it was slanted the same way. Both articles are overwhelmingly sympathetic towards pro gay marriage and paint a negative and cold picture of the mormon church. Sometimes I think that this station takes the blun for media bias when other stations present their information in the same way.

Here is the CNN Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/state.laws/index.html?iref=newssearch

I think that alot of bias comes from the journalists themselves, not necessarily the station. Especially when regarding issues as emotionally charged as this one, I think that it is really hard for a journalist not to keep ther own opinions out of their writing.

media bias

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,459544,00.html

Amber and Matt W.

1. The information is accurate

2. All of the information was one-sided. It seemed penned to make the mormon church look bad. their side had no voice.

3. There were no real experts in this article, just high standing members of the gay and lesbian marriage movement. Only one for the mormon church was recorded which gives a substantial bias to the anti-gay marriage movement.

4. not applicable

5. We do not think there is a status quo on the gay marriage rights issue. Our current population seems drastically divided one way or another.

6. What is the effect of having conversational quotes in the article versus official written statements?
The article had a deliberate and more personal feel towards the pro gay rights movement while the other side presented was presented as cold and unfeeling towards the people being persecuted against.

teens online

I think that this frontline special was a great wake-up call to parents about how kids are using the Internet. This new medium has created several new positive and negative influences for teens especially. I cannot believe how fast the internet has changed our culture. This generation uses the internet for everything from research to satisfying social needs that go unfulfilled in our own lives. Friends are contacting each other through social networking sites rather than meeting face-to-face and we are also using this medium to create and maintain our most private relationships. All teens need to be informed of the dangers and precaution they should take online but I did however think this tv spot was overblown. I found this article from the MIT Technological Review and felt it presented some good points about online use:

"For almost a decade now, the debate about youth and new media technologies has been polarized around two conflicting mythslet's call them the Myth of the Columbine Generation and the Myth of the Digital Generation. The first is driven by fear, the other hope, but both distort the reality kids and parents must negotiate in the online world, and both exaggerate the centrality of digital media in children's lives.Parents, educators, and policymakers can get whiplash trying to respond to the competing pull of these two myths. One pulls us toward wiring every classroom in the country so that kids may enjoy the benefits of digital access, the other mandates filtering programs in school and library computers since kids can't be trusted once they log on."

The major problem here seems to be about finding a balance. How much is too much and how far is too far when the internet is concerned? As a culture, we have profoundly mixed views about how much adolescents should be protected from adult realities and almost uniform agreement that children should be protected from pornography. I think a lot of responsibility of how much teens use the internet should be placed on parents.

Teens today face a public life with unimaginably wide possibly for publicity. The internet opens up a whole new world of possibility. We can basically advertise ourselves for friendship, for jobs, and anything else we desire. Because of this, I do no thins it is accidental that teens live in a culture infatuated with celebrity, the “reality” presented by reality TV and the highlypublicized dramas (such as that between socialites Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie).

FCC Regulation

a. describes Dunbar's theories of "The Spinning Door", "Frequent Flying", and "What occurs behind closed doors" in regards to the Center's investigation into the FCC

The spinning Door: This reflects the findings thatr many employees within the FCC are former industry executives and lawyers, and vice versa. Dunbar uses Dorothy Atwood, former chief of the FCC's Wirelind Competition Bureau and discusses her switch to SBC. He points out that while not illegal there is a serious conflict of interest present when this happens.

Frequent FLying: This refers to the "cozy" relationship between the agency and the industry. The study entitled "On the Road Again-and Again" revealed that the FCC had accepted nearly 2.8 million in travel and ebetertainment over eight years. The FCC coutered this attack saying that they were providing services for small businesses etc.. with some aid that would otherwise cost them too much money but a lot of exoenses were unexplainable. These executives flew first class, stayed at lavish hotels, and reflested a lot of unnecessary spending. Congress has put a cap on the amount of travel the FCC can accept however in an ideal situation, all travel money should come from the agency or from a non profit organization.

Behind Closed Doors: the top decision makers at the FCC often "rub elbows" with those they regulate. Before the FCC deregulated many restrictions, several secret meeting went on with industry leaders like SBC and Viacom. These are officially called ex parte meetings.

b. at the end of the article even chairman Powell says that sometimes industry influence over the FCC has gone too far. Has anything happened since the writing of this article in 2003 to change this?
I do not think that much has really happened since this article. With all the other problems going on in the nation, many just are not that concerned with the FCC. Michael Powell is no longer leading and hopefully our new government will make necessary changes. I agree with Stigler in that regulatory agencies are destined to become beholden to the very industry they are supposed to regulate.

Trend-Setting Media

"Often advertising is not about keeping up with the Joneses, but about separating you from them. That's especially true of advertising directed at a particular group, such as adolescents or young-adults - it's called 'dog-whistle' adversiting because it goes out at frequencies only dogs can hear."
Dr. James TwitchellSmithsonian, April 2000

The media has become more and more saturated into our culture today. Marketers seem very well aware that they have the power to set the new trend just by coming up with that perfect ad campaign or getting the right person in Hollywood to represent their product. Life without technology feels impossible with the explosion of cell phones, mp3 players, and blackberry’s etc… Media provides us with entertainment, information, and comfort. As the standard of living in this country is rising, people find themselves investing in digital cables and high speed internet connections, thus increasing their exposure to such media as the World Wide Web and the hundreds new channels that come with digital cable. While everything we experience us as individuals, it is probably the commercials seen on television that have the most influence over our own choices and decisions. In America, the media and advertising are some of the biggest influences on an individual's method of viewing and interpreting the world around them. The influential power of the media is reaching controversial levels and very few aspects of life in America remain outside the pressure of these outlets. Violent programs, biased twenty-four hour news networks, and impossible social standards promoted by advertising are some of the negative byproducts of modern media. Nonetheless, television, radio, print ads, and other forms of media all remain crucial to the dissemination of knowledge and ideals which continue to inform people's views about the world.

If you go to this link, you will read an article about how to generate influential propaganda: http://www.doshdosh.com/the-art-of-propaganda-seven-common-techniques/

I thought this article was interesting because it hit on some major techniques that marketers use to influence its audience. One particular point that this article makes is the importance of appealing to the audience’s emotions. This tactic can be seen in many commercials on TV like the Hallmark card campaigns or as the holiday’s approach, those tacky family food commercials with everyone around the table, talking, laughing, and enjoying a nice holiday meal. The article also lists six other main tactics such as name-calling, glittering generalities, and testimonials. These are just some of the ways that advertisers manipulate language and images to capture our attention. The following are some true statements I have found to be true about advertising:

• Advertising sets us up to feel dissatisfied - even if we think we have everything we need, ads will still try to convince us that there is something else we need.
• Advertisers try to show us how much more satisfied, popular, happy, hip, attractive, sexy, fun and in control we would be if we had their product.
• Fashion and trends are always changing so that we must continually spend money to be current.
• Advertising stresses competition and status versus feeling good about being who you are and accepting others for who they are.

One trend that I think has the most influence in teen culture especially today is the projection of the perfect female body. Images of the thin, idealized female bodies are everywhere. Women—and their body parts—sell everything from food to cars. Popular film and television actresses are becoming younger, taller and thinner. Some have even been known to faint on the set from lack of food (USA today 2006). Women’s magazines are full of articles urging that if they can just lose those last twenty pounds, they’ll have it all—the perfect marriage, loving children, great sex, and a rewarding career. The American research group Anorexia Nervosa & Related Eating Disorders, Inc. says that one out of every four college-aged women uses unhealthy methods of weight control—including fasting, skipping meals, excessive exercise, laxative abuse, and self-induced vomiting. Who introduced this trend? Who taught girls that being thin was the only way to go? Researchers report that women’s magazines have ten and one-half times more ads and articles promoting weight loss than men’s magazines do, and over three-quarters of the covers of women’s magazines include at least one message about how to change a woman’s bodily appearance—by diet, exercise or cosmetic surgery. Television and movies reinforce the importance of a thin body as a measure of a woman’s worth. Canadian researcher Gregory Fouts reports that over three-quarters of the female characters in TV situation comedies are underweight, and only one in twenty are above average in size (BBC News World Edition, Feb 5 2003).

Killing Us Softly is a 20-minute film that is an excellent resource for use by classes or discussion groups that want to explore the impact of advertising images on society's view of women. This is extremely eye-opening.
Here is a link for a seven minute clip from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufHrVyVgwRg

Here are some sample images of women in the media:

wirelessing the world

1. CWNs are community wireless networks that allow for open. free accessible, nonproproetary systems to be built using the buying power and economies of scale withing neighborhoods, towns, and cities. CWNs are a way for resident to build rescources in their communities, save money, and free themselves from profit-driven business models. This bridges the digital divide by eliminating one problem facing users: end users having to pay directly for access.



2. Barriers: The battles fought over control in wireless mirror previous technological battles between big business and the greater good. As with the telephone, many wireless providors are made up of powerful, profit focused companies that hold have a niche in the wireless market, These companies belong to a trade group called WiMax. This forum is composed of industry leaders whose interest seems to be maximizing profit. this forum would like to "eleiminate all competing standards before the public has any idea of what the alternatives maight be." this system creates a standards-compliance structure that puts smaller, CWN's at a disadvantage. Bid business is hard to overcome and our current system does not help.

3. The result of fewer companies controlling the market share comes from corporate consolidation and the early buying of technology before anyone else has a chance. controls over wireless technilogies are quickly being consolidated by large corporations whose main interest in bolstering profit. These companies have the money and power to gain control ovder any new develoopment before any small-scale firm. This is a very common and smart business move. If companies don;t consolidate, there will be too many different people involved. Though not very personable and it may not result in cheaper wireless tactics, the networks are easier to control this way.

money as debt

It would seem natural, that money is created by the State, and in fact most Central Banks seem to be owned by the State and run by it. I say "seem" because, to all intents and purposes, it is an apparency. They are almost constituting a "fourth power" in addition to the three legally constituted and well known "traditional" powers, legislative, executive and judicial.
When the State needs money, it does not order the Central Bank to credit some money to the treasury’s account. The State has only two ways to obtain money. One is taxation of it's citizens, the other is borrowing from the banks.
When the Central Bank issues money, this is done in the form of a loan. The State has to borrow this money, and must promise to repay it, with interest. The same is true of course for a private person who needs money borrowing from a commercial bank. The bank is happy to loan, as long as you can show you have security, and promise to repay with interest. The banks are essentially creating money. Banknotes, when they are printed, are considered the property of the Central Bank. They are not given to the State to spend, but are brought into circulation against a corresponding debt. Anyone wanting some of those notes to spend, has to "buy" them by giving up some of their credit. And in any case, most of the money in circulation (more than 90% according to the video) is not banknotes but "credit". When you go to your bank asking for money, the loan you get is created right there in your bank. The "money" consists of figures on your bank account, and it can be spent writing checks, giving an order to transfer or drawing the cash. Banks only have to have a small percentage of their loaned-out money actually available. The rest can be paid out just by moving some figures from one account to another. Money is created just by inserting some numbers into a computer.

2. Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?

An economy needs money so that goods and services can be exchanged. If there is too little money goods will remain unsold, prices will fall and we call this deflation. If the scarcity of money becomes serious, eventually the economy will go into recession, that is, production comes to a halt, people lose their jobs, misery starts to reign. So it is very important that the amount of money in circulation is at all times sufficient for people to buy the goods and services that are being offered. If on the other hand, too much money is available, inflation, which is a general rise in prices that diminishes the "buying power" of money, is the result. Inflation is as undesirable as deflation, and it would be best if money were stable in it's buying power.
At this time, government has only indirect means, to assure such stability, because it is the banks who can determine how much credit to create.
Also with the government unable to create it’s own money, the only way to make sure there is enough money to buy the goods that are on offer, is to continue taking loans! Of course that means to continue to pay interest! That is why governments never have enough money, and why we have to be taxed to the limit of endurance to pay for debt service, in addition to all other government expenditures