Just a reminder about your assignment for this next week:An original article on a future event eg. weather forcasts, fashion, business. Send it as an e-mail to coolcar.richardson@gmail.com
Also some of you might want to join us on Second Life for a video project for Aoyama.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
How do you feel about large international companies controlling domestic news sources?
From the New York times:
Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday for $580 Million
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and TIM ARANGO
A tentative deal to buy his third New York newspaper would
tighten Rupert Murdoch's grip on American news media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23paper.html?th&emc=th
Murdoch Taking On F.C.C. Media Rule
By STEPHEN LABATON
Rupert Murdoch appears likely to pose the first significant
challenge to the media ownership rule that the Federal
Communications Commission recently adopted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23ownership.html?th&emc=th
From the New York times:
Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday for $580 Million
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and TIM ARANGO
A tentative deal to buy his third New York newspaper would
tighten Rupert Murdoch's grip on American news media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23paper.html?th&emc=th
Murdoch Taking On F.C.C. Media Rule
By STEPHEN LABATON
Rupert Murdoch appears likely to pose the first significant
challenge to the media ownership rule that the Federal
Communications Commission recently adopted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23ownership.html?th&emc=th
Here is an example of government-military manipulation of the news, which is what we were discussing in the last class. This is from the Geeky, Nerdy, news letter from Slashdot.com:
| Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts |
| from the media-trojan-horse dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 22, @17:31 (The Military) |
| http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/22/2010243 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]gollum123 notes an extensive article from the NYTimes on the evidence
that the military, since the time of the buildup to the Iraq war, has
been manipulating the military analysts that are ubiquitous on TV and
radio news programs, in a [1]protracted campaign to generate favorable
news coverage of the administration's war efforts. "Hidden behind that
appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is
a Pentagon information apparatus... The effort... has sought to exploit
ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial
dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in
the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Several dozen of
the military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either
as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants. Records
and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over
access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind
of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism
coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ...[M]embers of
this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when
they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts
acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their
access."
| Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts |
| from the media-trojan-horse dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 22, @17:31 (The Military) |
| http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/22/2010243 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]gollum123 notes an extensive article from the NYTimes on the evidence
that the military, since the time of the buildup to the Iraq war, has
been manipulating the military analysts that are ubiquitous on TV and
radio news programs, in a [1]protracted campaign to generate favorable
news coverage of the administration's war efforts. "Hidden behind that
appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is
a Pentagon information apparatus... The effort... has sought to exploit
ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial
dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in
the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Several dozen of
the military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either
as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants. Records
and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over
access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind
of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism
coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ...[M]embers of
this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when
they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts
acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their
access."
Sunday, April 20, 2008
This article is from ButterflysandWheels.com:
Apologetics and the Surrender of the Fourth Estate
Click here if you want to print, or adjust the appearance, of this article
By Gil Gaudia
It has been debated whether the term “the Fourth Estate” which refers to journalism or a “free press” was originated by Edmund Burke, who once pointed to the gallery of reporters in the British Parliament and declared them to be the fourth, and most important, element overseeing a triumvirate of governmental power. In my opinion, this was one of the most perceptive descriptions of democracy and its processes, applying equally well to the British Parliament and the Estates General of France (from which the term was derived); the constituents were supposed to be representatives of the society’s main elements— the nobility, the middle class and the clergy. Burke was saying that the influence of a free press was, and should be, greater than any of the other three because the “word,” written and spoken, was the key to power.
(Incidentally, the “debate” arises because a guy named Thomas Carlyle is the one who actually put the following statement in writing: “Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament but in the reporter’s gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”)
Who said it first? Was it Burke? Was it Carlyle? Does it matter?
What does matter is that the uncertainty of Burke vs. Carlyle symbolizes the dilemma of whom or what we believe. In this country today, if we substitute the terms “United States Senate” for the “nobility” (makes you want to vomit doesn’t it?) the “House of Representatives” for the “middle class” (not very appetizing either) and “fundamentalist Christians” for the “clergy,” (Well, that’s not too bad) it is apparent that little has changed, with one glaring exception. The Fourth Estate has sold out to the combined forces of its previous antagonists and we now have the deplorable situation where the people have lost the protection of the “more important far than they all.”
Where is today’s Fourth Estate? Nowhere to be found, because sadly, with the exception of only a small minority of courageous and perceptive people, whom the other three estates have managed to portray as unpatriotic troublemakers, the American press has surrendered its role in the “reporter’s gallery,” and is no longer fulfilling Burke’s/Carlyle’s indispensable obligation. This is a devastating loss. It is devastating because access to the truth about governmental matters, of which the press has been the guardian, has been abandoned.
Apologetics and the Surrender of the Fourth Estate
Click here if you want to print, or adjust the appearance, of this article
By Gil Gaudia
It has been debated whether the term “the Fourth Estate” which refers to journalism or a “free press” was originated by Edmund Burke, who once pointed to the gallery of reporters in the British Parliament and declared them to be the fourth, and most important, element overseeing a triumvirate of governmental power. In my opinion, this was one of the most perceptive descriptions of democracy and its processes, applying equally well to the British Parliament and the Estates General of France (from which the term was derived); the constituents were supposed to be representatives of the society’s main elements— the nobility, the middle class and the clergy. Burke was saying that the influence of a free press was, and should be, greater than any of the other three because the “word,” written and spoken, was the key to power.
(Incidentally, the “debate” arises because a guy named Thomas Carlyle is the one who actually put the following statement in writing: “Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament but in the reporter’s gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”)
Who said it first? Was it Burke? Was it Carlyle? Does it matter?
What does matter is that the uncertainty of Burke vs. Carlyle symbolizes the dilemma of whom or what we believe. In this country today, if we substitute the terms “United States Senate” for the “nobility” (makes you want to vomit doesn’t it?) the “House of Representatives” for the “middle class” (not very appetizing either) and “fundamentalist Christians” for the “clergy,” (Well, that’s not too bad) it is apparent that little has changed, with one glaring exception. The Fourth Estate has sold out to the combined forces of its previous antagonists and we now have the deplorable situation where the people have lost the protection of the “more important far than they all.”
Where is today’s Fourth Estate? Nowhere to be found, because sadly, with the exception of only a small minority of courageous and perceptive people, whom the other three estates have managed to portray as unpatriotic troublemakers, the American press has surrendered its role in the “reporter’s gallery,” and is no longer fulfilling Burke’s/Carlyle’s indispensable obligation. This is a devastating loss. It is devastating because access to the truth about governmental matters, of which the press has been the guardian, has been abandoned.