The media creates many sterotypes, show like say “Queer eye for the straight guy”, or even shows like “Seventh Heaven”. They create sterotypes, images of how certain groups act, they imply that they act a certain way. The media does this for a reason, it sells, it’s nice to see a happy preaching minister family, it creates a false identity, a false world which we can believe for an hour.
In shows such as Queer eye for the straight guy”, they give this impression that gays all have this sort of girlish voice, a kind of feminine tone, and mannerisms. It also gives the impression that all gays are these fashion in vogue people, that have this innate sense for it. The media creates these certain perceptions, and because of it, we watch, and I’m sure it has some effect on us. It might not immediately effect our opinions, but for example lets say I see somebody on the street that exemplifies this stereotype of Gays, it would than remind me of the show, and through that cause me to believe the stereotype that the show presents. The media creates the stereotype on the television, but slowly it carries through and affects our views, the media’s stereotype becoming our stereotype.
The media does not however always create negative Stereotypes, the example of say a ministers family. In “Seventh Heaven” they show this perfect happy family that is seemingly morally perfect. It creates another kind of image, creating a rather positive stereotype, that all ministers and that kind of community are all so morally correct. The media is not always a negative force when it comes to Stereotypes, it can do the opposite as well, such as with this show.
The media, though it does create these Stereotypes, does not do this for any particular reason, there is no malicious motive behind there actions, in actuality they do this, they create Stereotypes simply because it sells, it creates ratings. It may be wrong morally to create Stereotypes, however if we keep watching then there is no reason for the media to change its ways. In the end the media will constantly creates Stereotypes. Wether good or bad, they will continue to create those Stereotypes, and as we continue to watch these shows, there is no reason for them to stop doing so.
The media influences our lives more than we notice. We try be unsusceptible to the media's influences but we fail, we do not even notice our failures. A lot of the time we choose not to notice, we say to ourselves "Oh, the media doesn't affect me. I am in control of all my views and opinions." But what we don't realize is that, that is just us covering up what the media's done. We try to hide the fact, and maybe we don't even know how they've affected us but every time we watch a commercial or look at an ad we are affected. The media also creates and maintains many stereotypes. They constantly use certain marketing techniques to create these stereotypes. In television shows this is obvious, many TV shows maintain all different types of stereotypes. For example, the show Family Guy, while I find it hilarious and enjoy it a lot, the show maintains certain stereotypes society has created. The media has always played a role in creating and maintaining stereotypes, I do not see the end to this in the near future.
No matter what the topic is, the media has a huge role in portraying information to the public. A lot of times, the issues that are presented by the media deal with religious or moral conflicts that can be very personal to people. All around the world, many major issues are occurring, whether it be war, issues of sovereignty, or cultural issues. The media has a job to present these issues to the public in an objective manner. This means the media cannot encourage stereotypes by any means. The question is whether or not the media actually fulfills its role in society.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict has been an ongoing issue for decades. The media, whether it be the newspaper or the televisions news, must present the happenings of this idea in an objective manner, without encouraging stereotypes. But if one follows the news, it is easy to see that these issues are not always presented the way they should be and one side is usually favored. Sometimes, one can see that the Israeli side of the conflict are favored, for example. This goes against what the role of the media should be.
Simply by presenting a bias toward a single side can bring out stereotypes. The general public can develop steretypes toward certain types of people after watching the news or reading news articles that are very one-sided. The encouragment of stereotypes by the media only leads to even more conflict. It leads to cultural conflict, moral conflict, and ethical conflict. The media is not meant to bring about these events and is going against its proper role in society today.
Sexism, Ageism, Racism, Classism....
all ism upheld by people, regardless of their better judgment. Why is it that people can still today think with such strict dividers. There are many dividers among class, race, sexes and age in todays society, and the media is a source that can and does fuel many of the dividers. From movies to advertisements all sources of media are made for a certain audience. There are classic urban films, teen movies, chick flicks, and straight to video films for those who cant afford to go to the movies. I feel that the media does play a role in creating and defining stereotypes. It is not nearly as bad as it could be, and i feel that recently the stereotypes have been starting to break down. There was recently a Verison commercial with a multiracial family. The first multiracial ad, with a white father and a hispanic mother. This ad gave me so m much hope about the future of media because it portrayed life as it truly is. Television is starting to gather both rich and poor audiences, and is being made for all races. While i think one could come at this question very cynically and say that the media causes all dividers - i do not think that is true.
I think that the media definitely maintains images of steroetypes without necessarially meaning to. For example there is BET, the Black Entertainment channel. I understand the intention behind having a station designated towards one racial group, but it does create a form of segregation, because it is one channel meant for one race alone. Networks in Japanese are different, because that is aimed at people who speak the language. BET is aimed at black people. Sometimes, when white people watch BET and talk about what they see, they are called "acting black". This furthers feelings of stereotypes - the black person you see on BET is viewed as the typical black. Also, women in the media are always depicted as busty, beautiful, scantally dressed and having perfect highlights in their hair. This is anything but the typical woman, but the media creates a stereotype that many women feel they must try to live up to. This in turn makes men believe that they deserve these perfect steroetypes from TV, which makes them feel superior to other "imperfect" REAL women.
The media has a very large influence on society. There is such a wide range of political issues that media covers daily, whether it be through news television programs, newspapers, magazines, or the Internet. The media is definitely very important in terms of delivering information for the people of our society, but it must be delivered in the right way. Unfortunately, news is not only presented in a positive, objective manner – the way it should be presented. Most of the time, there is much biased toward the political issues that exist in today’s world. In a way, the media makes these issues even more controversial than they actually are.
There are many controversial issues such as the war on terror, President Bush’s abstinence/youth plan, and conflicts in the Middle East. News stations can only discuss so much of these issues and, at some point, there is usually more of one side of the story presented. For example, in the war on terror news stations may only show the Iraqis that support the U.S. and refuse to show the Iraqis that are against what the U.S. is doing or vice versa. During war, the media plays a huge role. The media tends to show more of the successes that take place during war, rather than the failures. This can totally reshape the public’s opinion toward way.
President Bush’s abstinence/youth plan is something that is not publicized as much as other issues. When it is publicized it seems to show that this plan is indeed working. But at the same time, it does not seem very realistic for all teenagers in today’s society to simply resort to abstinence. Perhaps the media should be publicizing different methods of preventing pregnancy rather than focusing on only abstinence and focusing on one side of such a controversial issue.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict has been occurring for years and is something that can easily be presented in a biased way through the media. Often times, one will see news stations and newspapers showing only one side of the conflict and not presented all of the details. It is very difficult to present this type of information in an objective manner, especially something as devastating as the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The media has a huge role on shaping the public’s opinions of political issues that the world faces today.
Sadly, I believe that the media cannot always be fully trusted. There is so much propaganda and bias between news channels. For example, Fox News is well known for, well, criticizing America. It reports news much differently than CNN, which supposedly is the most trusted news station. So just for the fact that there is a “more trusted’ News station in America, one can’t say that all of the information that we receive is not always 100% on point. Many times, this may even be on purpose. So for the presidency campaigns, everything that is said is also not all true, and many times exaggerated. This is for the fact that a running candidate for president that has enough money can pay off companies and stations to get more exposure.
The whole presidency election and campaigning is very tricky. Big companies give money to a certain candidate’s campaign, however then they obviously expect something in return. This is called credit. If that person wins, they then have to do something to benefit the company that gave them money. They could even go as far as making a new law that would help that company, or the area of business in which that company is in. For example, if Exxon were to give Bush money, he would perhaps make it so that oil prices would rise, and thus Exxon would make more money. So that’s a little on how the presidency election is not all that “clean” in its process.
Even though the media may not give us certain information, and even if people realize this, I still believe that the media is a huge influence on people’s view of each candidate, and defiantly makes a difference in the final election decision. How else do people learn about each candidate? Almost always through the media.
TO BE CONTINUED
In today’s world, the information exerted onto society is often manipulated by the media, and in result, instilling a biased viewpoint among its audience. Much of the information received through newspapers, radio, and television is regulated and fabricated to appease the higher power: the federal government. The media is able to emphasize certain aspects of an event and can lessen the significance of an event as well. In reality, society is sheltered from the truth and will never fully be aware of the decisions and actions going on behind closed doors. By choosing what will and will not be revealed to the audience, they are essentially manipulating society's thought process. In some ways, the power of the individual to think and create opinions is being taken away.
The coverage of the war in Iraq is an example of the manipulation of current events that occurs each and every day within the media. As I read the headlines and watch the news I cannot help but notice the details the media fails to communicate to its audience. Generally, the news only tells us of the deaths of GIs and the attacks on US bases, rather than offensive action our troops are taking and how many Iraqi civilians have been killed. Also often, the media tends to only report on two extreme categories of Iraqis, those who are in full support of American occupation, and those in extremist oppositions groups. They do not mention the middle ground and the argument as to why this whole process may have its downfalls. It is a shame that in order to get the facts straight, one has to have cable television for the channel of BBC or has to search for a newspaper that will give the opposing perspective and not as much tainted information.
In addition, the media tends to bring attention to celebrities and glam instead of current events. By putting emphasis on such aspects of the media such as the breakup of J Lo and Ben Affleck or Trump's new 90 story building in Chicago, the media is causing present and future generations to be less aware of the outside world and its issues. In a sense, the media instills the upcoming ignorance of teenagers, and could be the reason why the voting percent among 18-24 year olds is so low. Today in 2004 with all the international trouble with the reconstruction of Iraq, the Middle East conflict, the presidential election, it is vital that people be aware of what is going on. But the media continues to surround society with other focuses, once again, altering their thinking process.
Unfortuanetly, we live in a society where much of our knowledge and opinions are influenced by the media. Due to the nature of a capitalist and commericial society, there is not much room for self interpretation when only a certain amount of information is given. Because the media influences so much, we can no longer be the lazy viewers we once were, but must read articles and watch coverage with a perceptive eye so that we continue to think as individuals.
I think that what the Media is not doing enough of is reporting what is happening in the rest of the world. I went to England last summer and I found that their news was not only more interesting to watch, it had humor and substance, but also I found that there was a world outside of their country. They reported on small countries in Africa and Asia. They reported on the “normal stuff” too, like Iraq and the Middle East, but I just felt like I had taken more away from watching their news channel than from watching our news channel. Of course the advantage that the European countries have is that they are not as big as the US.
Another problem with the media is that they are not reporting on “happy” events nearly enough. It gets tiring to turn on the television and all one sees is death and bloody carnage, stocks down, doomsday predictions. I kid you not; there are constant predictions about what could happen in the future. My favorite is when they get an expert in what the topic is, like a hurricane. He then says that the hurricane could be serious and that people should be careful. The news hearing this piece of information then blows the story way out of proportion. For accuracy they quote what the specialist says, leaving out everything that they think wouldn’t support the story, so that it sounds like what that specialist said was all bad news and that there was no hope in surviving the storm.
Then there are the subliminal messages. The world of advertising is getting everywhere. I remember a time when my folks would bring me to the bank and they could get on the ATM and take out cash without a commercial interruption offering better rates in the bank they are already in. Another one is when a person is watching a movie. The character could be sitting down to dinner and the camera casually pans over the dinner table and the people sitting there. On the table is a bag of Doritos, and Ragu tomato sauce. The camera, then panning over the people focuses on their Nike shoes and Levi jeans. I’ve gotten used to it to some extent, but it can be really tiring to see all the time.
The last beef I have is when some ugly old guy is trying to get on the public’s side. The media adds sex appeal to that ugly old guy and then he’s famous and getting money. A perfect example is Donald Trump. It’s not like he needs more money, it’s not like he needs more fame. It’s just so the people can see some ugly old guy look funny and after a while that gets really annoying. It’s the same with Paris Hilton, she is definitely not an ugly old guy, but she’s already rich, she already has a famous family, so why is she getting more money? Her entire empire is based on sex, and so when one looks at her all they see is a giant sex symbol, who is rich and stupid. That gets annoying.
Subliminal messages, rich people who are getting richer, doomsday predictions and shallow reporting are what really make the media sleazy and influential. The American people hate the media and love it, if only the media could find a way to tone down the sleaze and add more substance to its
The media has a great effect on people but only if they listen. This is evident now especially with the 9/11 Comissoin and the details that is uncovering and the impact it is having on people. A whole lot of truth is coming out about that day and what went wrong, and there have also been some serious lies and hypocracies exposed. Condi Rice herself said that they had no idea New York would be targeted by Osama Bin Laden. But then the PDB came out and it specifically said New York landmarks could be targeted by bin Laden's next attack. I have paid attention to this, and it has made me trust Bush even less than I did before. It frightens me and I am definitely going to vote for Kerry.
So all of this information comes out. And people seem to not be paying much attention. A poll on CNN showed that more than 70% of voters said Clark's testimony would not affect their opinion of Bush and their vote in the election. Perhaps this is because no one is watching the testimony live, seeing what I see. Or perhaps they are only seeing the clips replayed at night by the news stations. Big company corporations that like it when the president is happy.
Another way the media affects society is with movies like "The Passion of the Christ". People see the movie, and get something different out of it. Unfortunately, middle Americans who already believed in Jesus and viewed the movie are taking it as the the truth. The 100% undeniable truth. This creates a problem, because movies should NEVER be viewed as the truth. They never show the whole truth - people always exercise their artistic lisense. Also, because the movie was put out by such a name as Mel Gibson, people were more excited about it. Also, the controversy it sparked about anti-semitism made people very interested in seeing it. Also, people took the reviews they read to be the truth, and assumed it's anti-semetic and therefore Gibson was too.
In order to create a successful movie, the media can't interfere. For example "The Last Temptation of Christ". This movie is very much like "The Passion" in the sense that it was a director experssing their vision of the story of Christ. Except someone in a review said that Jesus has sex. This sparked so much controversy with hardcore Christian fanatics such as Jerry Falwell that they organized protests and picketts. The movie only lasted a few weeks in theaters and then died. "The Passion" though, which received good press from Falwell, is still going strong. So media does effect people. A lot.
As society enters a newer era of technology and computers, the media uses those tools for its benefit of making money as well manipulating our views of politics, society, and state of the world in general.To begin, first source of today's media is the television. Picture this, you come home, drop your stuff, and turn on the TV. Somehow, in 90% of households, the couches or places to relax are located right in front of the TV. That in itself shows the influence that Media has an effect on a person themselves.
How can the public treat issues objectively if they are given arbitrary information in the first place? This is the main question in today’s media and its role in politics.
The media and politics create a never-ending cycle. Filled mostly with half wonder where the world would be if the media coverage was not biased and controlled. We learned, or fell into this cycle as long ago as history was written; from the beginning of Christianity to George W. Bush people have come up the ranks to power with self bought fame. It seems in today’s society, especially the United States people have become blinded and brainwashed by the NBC’s and Clear Channels. Companies who control the broadcasting networks have a certain biased obligation to satisfy whoever pays their bills. As the cycle turns the news feeds false information to the people whose support is needed by the politicians, who indirectly pay news. Currently in the U.S. there are major focus points that we can only research ourselves to truly gain knowledge; the presidential primaries and the war in Iraq just to name a few. Overall the Media that feeds the news controls it, and while the war and elections are issues that have been twisted ant least they are in the news. It also comes down to the fact that many issues are rarely mentioned like women’s rights and the environment.
The presidential primers began with eight prospective candidates and immediately favorites were chosen. You never heard about Carol Mosley Braun in the New York Times but as often as the moon rose we read about Kerry and Dean. From the beginning of inequality it was clear who the favorites were. In this time of the primaries the news should spit out the facts of their candidates. To allow the public to chose a candidate to allow the public to chose a candidate they support. It is hard to choose a candidate based on their politics when the media will spin and highlight a specific event such as the “Dean Speech” after Iowa. It was clear the speech was overplays and even CNN came out and said they had overplayed it. It seemed wrong that the media is controlled in a way that limits the news given out. It is also noted that news publications endorses a candidate.
The most profound amount of misinformation given recently was regarding the war in Iraq. A question still asked year and a half later: “why did we go to war?” the response given by the news and excuse given by the government is that there were weapons of mass destruction. Forgetting that the united states still has nuclear weapons not that many people would know we did not find any, infant we came out with a different prize. Saddam Hussein was captured and “like the “Dean Speech” it was played repeatedly.
How can the public treat these issues objectively if they are given arbitrary information in the first place? This is the main question in today’s media and its role in politics.
The media has an excessive amount of power to persuade the public's opinions and views on the world. The media has the ability to show the public certain things while omitting others. That ability alone presents a huge margin for abuse. Since the media has the ability to omit certain stories, or facts from their news reporting we the public are unable easy access to accurate, unbiased new coverage. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Now we must take a look at who controls the media. All the major television news stations are on networks that I'm sure have many political ties. The people who run the television networks that these media outlets are on have a lot of power.
The media uses its power in negative ways a lot of the time. The media is an effective tool that is used to manipulate people's opinions in certain ways. The media leaves out a lot of important facts and purposely directs the viewers to certain events. The media is influenced by bias and opinions way too much to be an effective, objective tool that the public can use without worrying that their news is altered to persuade them in certain ways.
Bush uses the media to his advantage all the time. They government gives stories to the media that it wants shown. Those stories allow the government to alter our perception on the world and events going on in certain ways. These things don't always have to be huge alterations. They can be as small as leaving out a crucial fact. Bush's war on terrorism only worked because of the terror he instilled in the public. Bush, along with his cabinet and the media are terrorists, throughout the entire War on Terrorism they have said things to make us the American people afraid of what might happen or what could happen. If you notice every couple months Bush, or someone working for him releases information saying that there is a big possibility of a terrorist attack on some city, and then they push up the terrorist warning color a level for the time being. Then after a couple weeks, after we've forgotten about it, they move the warning level down. They are doing this to keep this constant terror in the American people, so that they can justify what they do and get us to approve of what they're doing.
On top of this type of terror the government is utilizing against us, the media and the government have overlooked a lot of problems. We are to busy concentrating on other peoples issues that we have no even begun to deal with our own issues. For example rape statistics, child abuse, education standards, and homeless. We have so many issues that our society just overlooks and the blame goes to the media. The media hardly even touches upon these topics anymore, our views are being filtered to where they want them. We don't have control over what news we see, we are just being "spoon fed" whatever they want us to see. It's horrible that this tool that has such a great potential to affect so much in the world is being abused to change the ways we think and what we see.
The media does not really have an effect on politics, or our view of what
is going on, at least visual media, television. It does give us opinions, and
stances, and does say what we should be worrying about, but in the end it
really does not do anything to control our opinions, it trys to tell us what we
should think, and like, and have opinions about, but does not actually suceed in
doing so, at least directly, it only affects what subjects we think about, but not
the actual opinions.
The media can talk about war, and how effective or ineffective the
President is, but there is some that disproves it does anything to cause people
to change their feeling on a topic. The best example I can think of was Dean.
He had huge press about him, how he was the up incomer, the person who was
going to face the president. He was supposed to turn things around, the press
was all about him, but in the end he was a flop. The people did not vote for him,
they voted for Kerry. Clearly, even though they may give us a stance, tell us
who we think we want, in the end it does not have enough of impact on us, to
push us in a direction we did not what to already go in.
The only way I can see the media really having an impact, pushing
us in one direction is through what they do not talk about. They talk about
terrorism, about the dangers of exterior threats, which perhaps make the
people worry, and makes us, the people think of the seriousness of topics like
these. However, by doing this they also make us forget about the other
situations going on. Its truth, though we may have opinions about say war, and
terrorism, and the papers may not change our thoughts on the topics, by the
media ignoring other topics, we the people also are not made aware of those
other issues, and topics, and so cause us the people not to focus on certain
subjects. For example they may talk, or write about the Middle East, about all
these different dictators in the area, and how say in Iraq, we had to free the
country from Saddam who was dictator, which is true. However, they also at
the same time ignore that there are many other dictators in the world, so why
not talk about them? When they do not talk about them, those
other foreign dictators are ignored, and we the people, through the media
ignoring those certain subjects, make us not notice these topics, these other
dictators as well. So in that way the media does have some power to
manipulate what topics we focus on.
Regardless of the fact that the media may be able to control the
topics we think about, they still do not control our decisions. The media’s power
is limited in that way. As much as they can try to push us in a direction, as
much as they might try and attempt to persuade us and point us in a certain
direction, ultimately it is our own decision, and regardless of how they may try
to push us into a certain view, all they can really do is make us see certain
topics, but they can never control our opinions on those topics, and subjects.