Jay Nogami Projects

Sensationalism Today

In the modern world, technology allows untold access to news. Any person with an Internet connection can check any one of thousands of news sites at any time. As a result of this, both traditional and new media companies make every attempt to increase their viewership. There is one way to increase traffic that has surpassed all others: sensationalism. It appears that the modern world has become obsessed with big. People look for the biggest, most important stories. The media has noticed this, and is taking advantage of it in a huge way. Sensationalism in the mass media supports the spread of false information, and distracts from issues truly important in the world.
Sensationalism is defined by the Merriam-Webster as “the use or effect of sensational subject matter,” with sensational further defined as “arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction”(Merriam-Webster). In simpler terms, sensationalism attempts to create brief, superficial interest in a subject. When companies resort to sensational news, they look for not the most important stories, but the stories that will create the most interest immediately.
A perfect example of sensationalism comes from comparing two major news websites headlines about a March 17, 2011 Japanese aerial water dumping operation. Using identical images, The Huffington Post, perhaps the poster child of modern media successes, used a headline of “Desperation from Above: “Helicopters Try Dropping Sea Water On Nuclear Reactor To Avoid Full Meltdown.” BBC, long a pioneer in the media world, reported “Japan Steps up Cooling Operations” (Japan Probe). It is very clear that the Huffington Post used a sensational headline when reporting on this incident. The sensational headline imparts upon the readers a sense of urgency, and a sense of fear. While the Huffington Post is reporting truthfully, it is easy to see how out of proportion the headline was blown.
Perhaps the most prominent example of sensationalism in recent history was the H1N1 virus, or swine flu. When news of the “pandemic” first came out, there was nowhere that wasn’t reporting on the swine flu almost constantly. In the days following the news of the outbreak, CNN’s John Roberts was reported as asking “Is this the killer virus that we've all been fearing for decades? Is it just a threat? Is this 1976, where we had a small, contained outbreak, or is this 1918, where 20 million people died worldwide?" (NPR). Roberts presents a tone that tells listeners to prepare for the very worst. It is now evident that swine flu did not turn into a worldwide problem, and that it did not kill millions and millions of people. Yet every single American was in a huge frenzy when this news started trickling out. And they had good reason to be. According to a CBS news report, “swine flu stories took up a whopping 43 percent of airtime” in the week after the outbreak (Montopoli).Trying to fathom just how much of news reporting this is can be very difficult. This means that for every minute of programming about anything but the swine flu, nearly 45 seconds of reporting was about the swine flu. This is a modern example of taking a big news story, and making it bigger and bigger until it seems that it is the only important thing in the world.
Sensationalism not only occurs in reporting for the daily news, it also is found in reports on medical studies. According to a 2001 report by the UPF, there are “subtle incentives” that can result from sensationalising news reports on medical studies (Ransohoff et al). It stated that “sensationalism may prevent the public from being knowledgeable participants in policy discussions about scientific issues”(Ransohoff et al). The report goes on to talk about various reasons why sensationalism in this case is harmful. These sensational reports by news media “generate both false hopes and unwarranted fears”(Ransohoff et al). This means that just by sensationalising medical studies, media outlets often times influence public belieft. In creating a sensational headline or story, the media can essentially say whatever they believe is going to be the most viewed. This only further supports the Huffington Post’s example from earlier.
Often times however, sensationalism has greater effects than instilling false hopes or fears. A report by the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council outlines countless ways that sensationalism has hurt efforts for peace in Sudan (ESPAC). It took until 18 months after the dispute in Darful began for any British news media source to acknowledge that there were two sides to the conflict (ESPAC). That is an astounding thing to reflect upon. What has been marked as one of the greatest modern genocides has been marred by such sensationalising that most people worldwide were unaware that there were two sides fighting in the war. Without any news reports contrary, all were led to believe that it was a one sided fight, with nothing but merciless slayings.
However, this is just as true in American media reporting on the Darfur conflict. According to a 2004 article in the Village Voice, vven the esteemed New York Times was guilty of sensational reporting in regards to the conflict in Darfur:
The Washington Post and The New York Times have repeatedly characterized attacks by the Arab riders of the government-backed Janjaweed as a war against “black Africans.” The Associated Press has referred to the turmoil in the Darfur region as fighting between Arabs and “ethnic Africans.” Clinging to race as an explain-all theory might make for more readable stories, but it has a central flaw. Many of the Sudanese “Arabs” are as dark as the “ethnic Africans” they are at war with (Coates)
The New York Times, perhaps the United States best investigative newspaper, is guilty of extreme sensationalising. They take a conflict that “involves issues of religion, climate, and competition for land” and turn it into a flat out race war (Coates). A misrepresentation this large makes it abundantly clear just how great an effect on our media sensationalism has. Since race wars are more interesting, and more easily understandable, The New York Times does its best to misrepresent the conflict, as doing so helps increase their views.
It is quite obvious why so many news sources resort to sensationalist media: it sells. The United States is obsessed with the next big thing. Americans, and the rest of the world, want to know the biggest news stories. The world is bored easily, so news media is forced to ratchet up larger and larger headlines, to create more and more controversy. Checking a major newspaper any day, it is easy to see that the stories that will sell the most are put on front pages, not those that are most important. in a time when the United States is struggling to pass a bill that allows it to keep operating, the front page of every major newspaper is reporting about a royal wedding in England.
Since newspapers are for profit businesses in the United States, it is necessary for the media to conform to what it thinks its viewers want. However, at what sacrifice to journalistic integrity should newspaper sales or ratings shares come? It has reached a point where the Japanese government felt it necessary to ask foreign media to “be objective, not sensationalist” (O’Carroll). When the media has reached a point where they have to be specifically asked to be objective, there are great problems. Something needs to be done to stop the arms race that is occurring throughout the United States and world. Sensationalism is taking hold of the media, and if it is allowed to reign supreme, true, objective reporting may die with. In a democracy, if citizens are not informed, their action may not be the actions that are best for society. For if not, it surely means the destruction of the entire planet. Just ask the media.

Works Cited

ESPAC. "Espac.org - THE MEDIA AND DARFUR: SENSATIONALISM AND IRRESPONSIBILITY." ESPAC - Working for Peace in Sudan. 2005. Web. 26 Apr. 2011. .

Japan Probe. "Media Sensationalism: BBC vs. Huffington Post." Japan Probe. 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .

Meeriam-Webster. "Sensationalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 27 Apr. 2011. .

Montopoli, Brian. "Did We Overreact To Swine Flu Threat? - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. 6 May 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .

NPR. "How Well Have Media Covered The Flu Outbreak? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. 5 May 2009. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. .

O'Carroll, Sinead. "Japan Asks for Objective Reporting from Media - Leadership - Leadership | Ireland's Online Business and Management News Service - Businessandleadership.com." Business and Leadership News from Ireland's Leading Source. 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .

Ransohoff, David F. "Sensationalism in the Media: When Scientists and Journalists May Be Complicit Collaborators." USF. Aug. 2001. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .

Jay Nogami

April 8, 2011

LIBA 102

Russell

The Future of Newspapers

Throughout modern history, newspapers have been used to get the attention of the masses. Whether it was to learn about the previous day’s major news, or to entertain oneself on Sundays, nearly everyone in the United States has looked at a newspaper at one point or another. However, the internet has in many ways obsoleted the model of the newspaper. Some news corporations are taking action, moving towards a modern model for their newspapers. Others are learning the hard way by running huge losses. In today’s world of constant technological advances, print media has two choices: keep on the forefront of technology or watch themselves crumble due to their outdated model of news.

In recent years, there has been a significant move away from newspaper subscriptions. In the six month period ending on September 30, 2010 the Audit Bureau of Circulation estimated average daily circulation rates fell five percent (Associated Press). This is a steep drop, but in the previous reporting period, the decline was a steeper 8.7 percent. This comes with very little surprise. There is access to free news from hundreds of different sources online. Comcast.net, Yahoo.com, and even AOL.com offer similar content as newspapers online for free. Add this to the ease of accessing this information from your computer, and in many cases from anywhere that has an internet connection and it becomes easy to see why newspapers are suffering.

However, newspapers nationwide have realized this and are taking action. John F. Strum, president of the Newspaper Association of America said that these declines in circulation were expected (Associated Press). Of the top 25 circulated newspapers, all but two reported a decline in subscribers. The Wall Street Journal notably added to its circulation 1.8 percent. They offer a subscription service to their online newspaper, so this counts towards their totals. Most other newspapers in the country provide their content for free (Associated Press). They are a bright ray of hope in the demise of the newspaper.

The Wall Street Journal is not the only major newspaper to attempt to monetize their online news access service. On March 28, 2011, The New York Times launched an online pay wall that prevents those without subscriptions to their online services to 20 articles per month (Kramer). There new program has launched to generally mixed reviews. Wired.com contributor Felix Salmon is not in favor of their pay wall. Salmon said, “For the time being, though, I just can’t see how this move makes any kind of financial sense for the NYT. The upside is limited; the downside is that it ceases to be the paper of record for the world. Who would take that bet? (Salmon)” Salmon doesn’t believe that the monetized version of the website will bring in nearly enough revenue to make a difference for the New York Times. He further believes that this could end the New York Times online dominance as a new source (Salmon). However, in an effort to keep their website from being entirely cut off, outside links to articles will be excluded from these pay walls (Kramer). As this new pay service was rolled out only two weeks ago, it is too early to tell the success or failure of The New York Times.

The internet has greatly changed how American’s view their news. They can have up to the minute information about anywhere on Earth from the comfort of their own home. Whether newspapers will be able to survive the onslaught of online free sites such as The Huffington Post, or Yahoo News is still unknown. It is a time of great change for newspapers across the nation. Start paying attention now, because they may not be here tomorrow.

Works Cited

Kramer, Staci D. "New York Times Digital Subscriptions: The Unofficial FAQ Updated | PaidContent." The Economics of Digital Content | PaidContent. 28 Mar. 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

Press, Associated. "Newspaper Circulation Down 5 Percent." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 04 Apr. 2011. .

Salmon, Felix. "Commentary: The New York Times Paywall Is … Weird | Epicenter | Wired.com." Wired.com. 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2011. .

Jay Nogami

LIBA 102

March 11, 2011

Russel

When people are looking for information on the economy, generally speaking they turn to the media. The media is there to provide statistics about the health of the economy. A very pertinent indicator on the health of the economy is consumer confidence, as it is a measure of how the general public views the economy. At times however, the media may be causing my harm than good. In reporting on consumer confidence, the media oftentimes focuses on negative trends rather than providing a truthful report, and their dishonesty has a negative effect on consumer confidence.
Consumer confidence is defined as “the degree of optimism on the state of the economy that consumers are expressing through their activities of savings and spending.(McWhinney). This is measured by the Consumer Confidence Index. This is considered a very important measure of the health of the economy, as it provides insight into how Americans feel about the economy. When consumer confidence is rising, spending tends to rise. And when consumer confidence is falling, spending tends to fall (McWhinney). The Consumer Confidence Index can be an excellent tool for the media in providing information on the economy.

However, the media tends to focus solely on the negative movements of the Consumer Confidence Index. The media always tends to focus on tragedy rather than triumph. Sensationalism is a very good way to create higher viewership or readership. This is true throughout all areas of reporting, even when it comes to the economy. When reporting on consumer confidence, the media often turns to a worse case scenario. For example, in a 12 month period from early 2007 to early 2008, there were seven months with positive consumer confidence, and five months with negative consumer confidence. However, of 32 articles on consumer confidence, there were 31 negative articles, and only one positive article (Burchfiel). Even worse, this one positive article showed doubt to the future of the Consumer Confidence Index.

In January 2008, NBC Nightly News reported that consumer confidence was at an all-time low. However, the Consumer Confidence Index for January was measured at 87.9, compared to the real all-time low of 43.2 in December 1974. The media has shown a complete lack of discretion when it comes to reporting on the Consumer Confidence Index. They speak on completely false terms, and fail to give context with their statements. There are reports of record high drops in consumer confidence month to month, with no mention of the record high rise the month prior (Burchfiel). The media picks up these stories and runs with them, as they provide a hot topic that readers enjoy to follow. Since consumer confidence shows what ordinary people think of the economy, and not just economists, it creates a common ground for the general public. Individuals can see what their peers think about the economy. And when people think those around them are down on the economy, they likely will become down on the economy too.

Oftentimes this false reporting on consumer confidence leads to more troubles in the economy. The media is doing more than providing statistics on the economy, they are providing the mind frame for the general public. Even in the late 1980s, researchers were recognizing the negative effects of the media on consumer confidence. “The news media are doing more than simply communicating news about economic events; they are defining the meaning of the events. In turn, the media definitions appear to serve as excellent guides to the distribution of public sentiment about the economy”(Tims et all). What the media fails to realize is that they are not just providing information on the state of the economy, they are influencing the economy itself. When media outlets speak in negative terms about the state of the economy, people will begin to think the economy is in bad shape, which in turn hurts consumer confidence. This will be reflected in new reports by the media, which could cause even lower consumer confidence.

The media trends towards negative reports when it comes to consumer confidence. While being aware of the state of the economy is very important, it is very important to stay on top of what is really going on in the world. While there might have been massive drops in consumer confidence, it is up to the media to also report that this follows massive gains from earlier. The media needs to be careful with their reports on consumer confidence, as they have more influence than most seem to believe.

Journalism

Ciera Burnett

Liba 102

March 11, 2011

Professor Russell

Journalism

What is journalism and how is the media different today? Journalism is gathering information for the news or newspaper. It has been stated that there are different types of journalism. For example, you have broadcast, print, and internet journalism. Broadcast journalism is for the radio and television. Printed journalism is for anything printed on paper. Internet Journalism can go from social networks to blogging about the latest events. It has come to much attention that people do not prefer all types of journalism/media. Do you agree or disagree? Personally I agree because I think that the more technology presented to people the more people will look toward technology to see what is going on. Fifty years ago, people would wake up early in the morning to read the newspaper but not anymore. Since broadcast journalism is something that you can actually see or hear, I wonder how it is different today.

Broadcast journalism is when you receive your news through the radio or television, but not on the printed items. Research has stated that broadcast journalism has been around since the 1940s. With that information being shared, do you think that broadcast journalism has been changed? In my opinion, broadcast journalism has changed a little since technology has improved over the years. Every day the public is coming out with the last Mac or the next Ipad. Broadcasting really is still the same concept but with innovations and adjustments. When I say innovation and adjustments, I mean special effects. When it comes to broadcast journalism, do you think that people prefer this type of journalism over print and internet journalism today? In my opinion, I think that it depends on the generation to see what type of journalism people prefer today. When it come to the younger generation you can never get them to pick up a book, so when the news is presented to them electronically with effects it draws their attention to what is going on. Whereas you place a book in front of them twenty minutes later, they are sleep with their heads inside the book. The older generation watches and listens to broadcasting journalism but they may prefer to read about what is going on instead of someone telling them.

Printed journalism is any and everything that is printed. For example, magazines, books, newspapers, and brochures are all examples of print journalism. Print journalism has been around since the 17^th century. Newspapers are the most common when it comes to print journalism. “Many newspapers of the time were not objective or neutral in tone like the papers we know today.”(Rogers) The newspaper today is more descriptive and most times have a message to them. For example, when the paper is talking about a public shooting, it states a message that we should be against gun violence instead of talking about what is important. Most people that work in an office are normally the ones who turn to the newspaper because they do not have time to sit around and watch what is going on the news electronically. I think that anybody can pick up a newspaper and read it but the question is would they rather read the news electronically.

Finally, Internet journalism is anything that is shown or can be found electronically. This type of journalism is one of the newest types of journalisms there is. People use the internet everyday to see the latest news on what is going on in the world, at school, church, or even the work place. “Internet journalism gives individuals up-to-the-minute updates on stories that affect their lives. This form of media can be accessed from virtually anywhere there is an Internet connection.”(Green) The reason for this is because the things on the internet are update almost every minute. You can refer to internet journalism as a social network, blog, or even a webcast. I say that because every time someone dies or something crazy happens you can look on Twitter or Facebook and find out what is going on. If it is something that really touches someone heart like what happened in Katrina they would probably make a webcast. I think that most people prefer internet journalism now days because technology is just improving more and more. It is just more conventient because you can always check the web on the go. I still say that it depends on the generation when it comes to what type of journalism people prefer today. When it comes to internet journalism, it refers to the younger age group because they are more knowledgeable with the web than the older generation.

In conclusion, “Each form of media provides different benefits for the public. Broadcast journalism offers pictures to go along with short informative stories. This gives viewers a visual to go with the story. Individuals can receive updates several times a day through this media. Print media allows individuals the paper or magazine to hold, read, and reread if they miss a topic. Internet journalism gives individuals up-to-the-minute updates on stories that affect their lives. This form of media can be accessed from virtually anywhere there is an Internet connection.” (Green) With all the research and data that I have looked at, I have concluded that people prefer all types of journalism as long as they get information that they need to know. The journalism that is taking over the industry is internet journalism and that is because it can be accessed anywhere you go. Whereas other types of media are not as simple. I say as long as the electronic/technology industry keeps growing the more people will be drawn to internet journalism. In the upshot of this, people are going to choose the type of journalism that best fits their lifestyle. For existence, college students use the internet journalism because it is easier for them to access.

Is Internet Journalism the Future of Journalism?

Ciera Burnett

Liba 102

April 30, 2011

Professor Russell

Is Internet Journalism the Future of Journalism?

Journalism is such a broad topic and I think that the future of journalism can never be determined. Many people today are stating that they think that maybe internet journalism could be the future of journalism. What do you think? Well I do not know exactly what to say but internet journalism could possibly be the future because that is what people spend most of their time doing. Common sense dictates that there are several different types of journalism but people are just drawn toward electronics more. Therefore, that would just be the cause of internet journalism going up. I have come up with three reason of why I think that internet journalism is the future of journalism. I think that internet journalism is the future of journalism because people are always on the go and with the new smart phones; it is easy to access the news on the web. Secondly, people are always on the web using social networks and things like that so most of the times news is posted on the social network sites. Finally, if you are trying to hear about news quickly editors are mostly likely to post it on the internet first.

I have done some research and I have concluded that even the federal government thinks that internet journalism could be the future of journalism. In the Associated Press Joelle Tessler wrote an article about FTC explores future of journalism in Internet age were he/she discusses how even the government is deliberating on whether or not internet journalism is the journalism of the future. “The federal government is wading into deliberations over the future of journalism as printed newspapers, television stations and other traditional media outlets suffer from Americans' growing reliance on the Internet” (Tessler). I totally agree with this statement because many people rely excessively on the internet when they can pick up a book or simply just watch it on TV. Many people have come to the conclusion that since so many people rely on the internet for so much that even companies have started to pay to put their advertisements on different web pages. I think the reason for that is that they feel that since not to many people are watching TV anymore they might as well go to the place that attracts the most people. This is the internet! The Federal Government has come up with the conclusion that the media business is going into a state of economic distress. They are saying that the media business is losing a lot of money because of the high rate of internet usage for media purposes. A lot of the Medias audience and advertisers are migrating to online media.

The question that I have for you now is, do you think that the Federal Government can stop this transition from traditional media to internet media. “The Federal Trade Commission began a two-day workshop Tuesday to examine the profound challenges facing media companies and explore ways the government can help them survive”(Tessler). They are trying to help the economic distress that the media companies are experiencing by having this two-day workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to figure out what can they do to help the media companies to make money. As I have said before the media companies are losing so much money because their audience and their advertisers are slowly migrating to online media. I do think that if they all meet with each other that they will come up with a conclusion on how they can improve each type of journalism. I honestly do not understand why the Federal Government is making the changes is media such a big dispute. I think that change is good. I think that people would prefer internet journalism anyway rather than the other types of journalism.

When it comes to journalism, you have to think about what the audience likes most and what would draw them in. The reason for that is so that they can keep making money and expanding their businesses. Many people would think that internet journalism has become so big in the industry because it is just easier to access. For instance, many people run to the internet to watch TV shows that come on TV. So just, take the time out and think about it, eventually the internet media/journalism was going to take over the industry anyway. "News is a public good," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. "We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy." “ Media executives taking part are looking for a new business model for an industry that is watching traditional advertising revenue dry up, without online revenue growing quickly enough to replace it. Government officials want to protect a critical pillar of democracy—a free press” (Tessler). Therefore, as you can see in the small passage above that the government is not too happy about the reality of the online revenue growing because they think that the traditional way of doing things is better.

The Federal Government has concluded that eventually internet journalism is the future of journalism. They all are think maybe that good things why not let us use it for what it’s worth. Therefore, the government decided to start letting people access the news and different media online but at a cost. “Among the options being discussed: tax law changes that would allow media companies to earn tax credits or become tax-exempt entities, and copyright law changes that would force search engines and other online aggregators to compensate media companies for the content they produce” (Tessler). For instance, on some news websites they ask you would you like to subscribe and most times when you do there is a monthly charge. They are charging you because they have to pay all of the companies whom they are getting news from and they cannot possibly do that if they are letting people just access the websites free.

“In a survey conducted over May and June this year, PR network Oriella asked media moguls how the Internet was affecting their business, their publishing formats, and even the quality of the content issuing forth from their newsrooms. In a survey of 770 journalists across 15 countries, the company determined that, while media creators are slightly more optimistic than they were last year about maintaining revenues vis-a-vis the rise of online ad budgets, many are still worried about whether traditional media formats can succeed in the long run” (O’Dell). ‘Everything is moving towards digital communications. Should we expect those who do not adopt and keep up to survive? The trouble is, the media industry has just not been able to figure out how to moneitse access to online content (The Times is a prime example) BUT, with the release of apps such as Flip Board we’re seeing some real innovation and perhaps a path forward”(Boyle). “However, many respondents also said that publishers were considering new online sources of revenue, such as paywalls, membership plans, and premium mobile content for phones and tablets. This may be due to the fact that, over the past two years in particular, publications have been reporting significant loss of reader/viewership as well as ad revenues to online media”(O’Dell).

In the above passage I gave you a few excerpt that were giving in a survey about the topic we are discussing. So far, with the information that I have gathered everyone is going toward internet journalism could possibly be our future of journalism, but at a cost. Every author or persons that I have talked to about this has stated that it would maybe be a good idea only if you can get taxes from it like if you were to sale newspapers.

Finally, I am going to talk about how internet journalism is the future of journalism but also how it can hurt traditional journalism. From my research I have come to the conclusion that many people think that internet journalism can help the journalism companies out of the economic distress but it can also hurt traditional journalism. Traditional journalism is simply just the root of were journalism first started. The Internet is helping journalism point to the range of information available online and to the way the Web has opened the practice of journalism to more people. “The Internet has some plusses: It has widened the circle of those participating in the national debate. However, it has mortally wounded the financial structure of the news business so that the cost of doing challenging, independent reporting has become all but prohibitive all over the world. It has blurred the line between opinion and fact and created a dynamic in which extreme thought flourishes while balanced judgment is imperiled” (Master). “It’s been bad in some ways for the media industry—especially newspapers, at this point—but over the long haul, I think the shift to the Web has helped the practice of journalism. It is subjected journalists to more real-time scrutiny and opened the profession to talented people not affiliated with major media organizations’ (Master). In the upshot of all of this, the news on the internet is rather shallow; it lacks a sense of history and context, and an appreciation for the complications of taking over the reins of government.

In conclusion, the internet journalism is the future of journalism. It may have a few kinks that still need to be fix but me just see it as the next generation way of keeping up to date on the world’s news. You never know internet journalism just might be the key to helping the media news get out of an economic distress that they are in now. Internet journalism is hip and it’s what everyone is talking about now.” Internet journalism is not a world we know very well at all. It's conducted more on the screen and less in bars, which makes it rather less useful for getting stories about people throwing up over one another, which is what one's after.”(Hislop)

Works Cited

23, July. "How the Internet Is Affecting Traditional Journalism [SURVEY]." Social Media News and Web Tips â Mashable â The Social Media Guide. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

"@Future of Journalism: Internet Audio | Media | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

Master, Cyra. "Media Insiders Say Internet Hurts Journalism - Magazine - The Atlantic." The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life – TheAtlantic.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

Tessler, Joelle. "FTC Explores Future of Journalism in Internet Age." Breitbart.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

Christian Mayeaux's

Christian Mayeaux

Professor Marty Russell

Liba 102

11 March 2011

Journalism and Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina is a powerful example of how journalism can directly affect aid distribution after such a natural disaster. In the weeks following the landfall of Katrina the news media had a large and concentrated presence on the scene of the disaster. Countless stories were produced and shown to the public regarding every little detail about the storm. These stories not only informed the public but also pointed the public’s eye in specific directions. This guidance had drastic effects on not only the perception of the storm but also the response. The news that the public saw influenced the strength and quickness of the outcry for aid. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the prevalent news stories regarding Louisiana and New Orleans largely overshadowed the stories regarding Mississippi Gulf Coast. This not only affected the public’s perception and also adjusted the federal aid distributed between Louisiana and the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

The most immediate effect the media had on aid distribution would be the quickness with which aid was rushed to certain regions. With regards to the New Orleans region, a large amount of food, water, and health products were present in the city within 4-6 days after the storm (Garriga). On the Gulf Coast, the situation was very different. Instead of aid stations being set up all over the place, aid stations few and far in-between. Just to get a week’s ration of water and food a person had to travel 30 minutes by an ATV (All-Terrain Vehicle) or walk around 4 hours to the nearest aid station (Garriga). In some cases people had to rely on emergency stores until contacted by the National Guard. One family went two whole weeks without any outside help before a National Guard helicopter dropped supplies in a nearby field (Garriga). Such cases are rare but they illustrate how painfully slow and unresponsive the aid distribution was on the Mississippi Gulf Coast compared to the relative quickness in New Orleans. One reason for this fact is that the public’s eye was fixed on the events occurring in New Orleans. Any and all surviving news broadcasting stations were almost exclusively based in New Orleans and put out stories solely about the state of New Orleans (Garguilo). The main effort of federal aid along with the media was focused on the city of New Orleans.

While the previous element is based mainly on the perception on survivors and experience the actual monetary amounts per capita distributed to each region give these stories validity. Federal aid allocated to Louisiana residents affected by Katrina was estimated at around $16,000 per person (Alpert). This staggering amount vastly surpasses that given to Mississippi residents. The population of the Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina was figured to be around 341,090 residents in a 2006 census (Mississippi Gulf Coast…). The totally amount of aid allotted to the Mississippi post-Katrina was set at $23.5 billion (Pender). This puts the amount of aid in dollars per person affect by the storm at around $6890 per person. One cannot help but see the huge difference between these figures. While these figures are only estimates they do illustrate the obvious gap between these two regions.

In closing, media coverage seems to have had a direct effect on the distribution of aid after Katrina. With the media focusing on one specific region the public was only primarily aware of one situation while blind to the other. Journalists should be aware of their ability to influence such pivotal events and help guide all parties towards a more even resolution.

Bibliography

Alpert, Bruce"Louisiana Gets More in Federal Aid than It Gives in Taxes." The Times-Picayune. 7 Feb. 2011. Web. 3 Mar. 2011.

Garguilo, Jordan C. Post-Katrina Gulf Coast Christian D Mayeaux. 2 March 2011.

Garriga, Matthew. Post-Katrina Gulf Coast Christian D Mayeaux. 2 March 2011.

"Mississippi Gulf Coast and South Mississippi Counties." Post-Katrina Population and Household Estimates and Projection. US Census Bureau. Web. 3 Mar. 2011. .

Pender, Geoff. "Where Did The Money Go?" INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE. NEWS, COMMENTARY & INSIGHT. Web. 03 Mar. 2011. .

Christian Mayeaux

Professor Marty Russell

Liba 102

8 April 2011

The Persuasiveness of Advertisements

Advertisements are a powerful example of persuasion in journalism. In our lives we have no time to devote to deciding what is best to wear, read, or listen to. Society has outsourced this need to journalist. One of the jobs journalists have is to inform an audience what they need to hear. This concept extends beyond just bringing news to the public. The overwhelming presence of advertising in our lives dictates who we listen to, what we buy, and who we trust. Journalist have a duty to the people to decide what products are good and bad for the public just as they decide what is news and what is not. Making these choices requires a level expertise and subtlety to create a very persuasive environment.

There are many factors that contribute to the persuasiveness of an advertisement but probably the most important of these being inspiring confidence in the audience. Advertisements seem to relying on conveying a catharsis set emotions to the audience. Advertisements should help people trust the advertiser by not sacrificing long-range trust for a short-term goal (Stovall). This means that the advertisement should reinforce the expectations the viewers have for a product and how this product will benefit their lives (Stovall). “This statement of benefit and appeal is the most persuasive part of an advertisement, and its importance cannot be overstated” (Stovall). This build-up of trust and confidence is directly plays off of the needs and wants of the viewer. Not only does the viewer feel good about buying the product, they feel like they are fulfilling a need. Take for example the Allstate insurance commercials. The recurring slogan in their advertisements state “Are you in good hands?” (Allstate). This not only infers that the advertiser is someone the viewer can trust but that the viewer will be safer if they use the advertised product.

These prior factors are very abstract and rooted more in observation. The language of an advertisement is something the viewer can point to and “measure” the persuasiveness of an advertisement. Factors like verb usage, precise diction, and detail all contribute to the advertisement. Persuasive advertisements use verbs instead of adjectives to describe the product (Stovall). Using verbs to describe an advertisement show the product in action which allows the reader to visualize having the product, whatever it is. Another factor to consider is making the advertisement more conversational then a mere layout of facts about the product. A good advertisement has a balance between being personal and informing the audience (Stovall). Before buying a product, consumers like to rationalize their purchase with facts that will help motivate them to invest (Stovall). While these facts are the basis for the purchase, the consumer does not want to be bombarded with facts until confused. The advertisement should also appeal to the viewer on personal level. A good way to achieve this is to use the second person “you” to relax the tone of the advertisement (Stovall). The Nationwide Insurance company has a series of advertisements with the slogan, “Nationwide is on your side” (Nationwide). Shifting the advertisement to the second person makes it more conversational and sounds much more natural.

In closing, advertisements just another informative choice delegated to the field of journalism. Just like any other choice these journalists make, a level of persuasion is needed to convince the viewer of the advertisement’s importance. Journalist use their intimate knowledge of the English language along with a well-defined understanding of the audience to achieve this persuasiveness.

Bibliography

Allstate. Advertisements. TNT Mar. 2011. Television.

Nationwide. Advertisement. TNT Mar. 2011. Television.

Stovall, James Glen. Writing for the Mass Media. New York: Pearson, 2009.

Christian Mayeaux

Professor Marty Russell

Liba 102

29 April, 2011

Journalism and the BP Oil Spill

The mass media had a profound effect on the perception of and reaction to the BP Oil Spill. When looking back on this tragic event it is very hard to find figures or news that do not create a sense of panic and hopelessness within the reader. The ongoing news coverage during the BP oil spill rarely gave signs of optimism and, in fact, perpetuated a feeling of doom. Several factors played into this build-up of negative feedback. The first and probably most recognized reason was the misinterpretation of estimates as facts. Over the span of three months, many figures were published about the oil spill regarding size and flow rate of the oil spill. Each time a new figure was published the media would jump on the opportunity and flood the channels with the announcements of new “factual” evidence. While these figures were calculated by reputable firms and reasonable methods they still remained rough evidentiary findings. The next factor has to do with the media’s complete disregard for perspective and history. During the BP crisis, the oil spill was heralded as the worst oil spill in the history of the industry (Telegraph). While not denying that this oil spill was a tragedy, the resulting clean-up and various other factors have shown that other oil spills far surpass BP’s accident. The most prominent of these other spills would be the Kuwait oil fires and the Gulf War oil spill. While these spills did occur under different circumstances and environment they still are able to put a little perspective on the severity of the BP oil spill.

The passing off of evidence as “fact” is one factor that affected the perception of the BP oil spill. When the oil rig first exploded the existence of a leak in the pipes was actually unsure. When the Coast Guard reached the scene of the spill there was actually no perceived oil flow to be seen (Nichols). A Coast Guard spokeswoman stated, “A remotely operated unmanned submarine sent down Thursday to inspect the scene found no oil leaking from the sunken Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and no oil flowing from the well, reducing the risk a major spill.” (Nichols). However, in the upcoming days an oil leak was spotted and reported by the USCG. As much as 1,000 barrels of oil was estimated to be leaking from an unknown source of the rig (CBC News). Up to this point the estimates remained to be estimates. Local and national news stations remained objective in their usage of the data reminding their audience that actual figures were still not known (Gargulio). However, as time passed and the oil leak remained unstopped the media began to vigorously search for a concrete number to give to the people. The USCG later revised their initial statement and amended it to around 5,000 barrels of oil a day (BBC News). Another independent source called Skytruth estimated the oil spill to be growing at an astounding 25,000 barrels a day (Cart). Yet another figure was published saying the rate of oil flow was anywhere between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels of oil a day (CNN). These figures were published only days apart from each other.

The constant approval and revision of known “facts” is what helped the perception of this oil spill grow into such a monstrous event. In reality the oil spill was a serious matter but the severity may have been grossly exaggerated. Final oil flow rate estimates rested at around 62,000 barrels of oil a day (Achenbach et al). These numbers were quickly spread by the media, heralding them as the end all figures of the BP oil spill. However, these figures are incomplete without looking into outside factors. One interesting variable that was not account for in the development of the early figures was the lack of deep water instrumentation to verify the figures produced. It was only near the tail end of the spill did the government have pressure sensors and a high definition camera on the leak site. With these instruments the figures could be thoroughly analyzed. Another unseen factor was the evaporation of the surface slick (New York Times). Up to 40% of the oil may have just evaporated straight into the atmosphere (New York Times). The rapid dissipation of the oil was speculated by many scientists as a result of natural breakdown of the oil by bacteria, wind helping the evaporation process, and the clean-up effort by BP. Natural breakdown came in the form of natural currents, osmosis, and storms. As time passed more and more of the oil particles slowly but surely separated into their simple forms. This was aided by chemical dispersants that acted as a catalyst to the natural breakdown. Dispersants such as Corexit 9500 and Corexit (R)EC9527A were the primary chemicals used during the BP oil spill (Renner). The actual numbers on the success have yet to be published but firsthand accounts have verified their success to some extent. By the time dispersant affected oil reached the beach the toxicity of that oil was non-existent (Garriga). The once crude, sticky was reduced to harmless tar balls and could actually be handled with the bare hand without harm (Garriga). In fact, the dispersant effect oil rarely even reached the shoreline as a liquid (Garriga). In addition to the dispersant, BP was able to collect a large quantity of oil-water mixture effectively removing a large portion of the oil spill. Up to 890,000 barrels of oil were successful gathered and processed by BP (RestoreTheGulf.gov).

The facts are presented to diminish the catastrophic scene that the media presented to the public’s eye. News sources were constantly emphasizing the long term environmental and economic effects but failed to recognize the amount of recovery that was taking place right below their nose. In the span of three months, BP was able to halt what could have been the worst oil spill in the entire history of the industry by a long shot. The media would have liked to believe. However, looking at the spill from a global perspective changes everything.

Arguably the worst oil spill of all time were the Kuwaiti oil fires and lakes associated with Iraq’s invasion of the small US ally. In total, around 1.5 billion barrels of oil were lost when many of Kuwait’s oil fields were set ablaze by retreating Iraqi troops (Chilcote). On top of this, nearly 10 million barrels of additional oil were poured directly in the Persian Gulf by Saddam Hussein to keep them from allied hands. When comparing the BP oil spill to the hardships faced by the Kuwaiti’s they are grossly disproportionate. The United States should consider itself lucky that the technology and leadership is present and willing to do everything to correct mistakes.

In closing, the BP oil spill was a tragic and horrible event that should be treated with care by the mass media. However, the media cannot deny its one primary function; the media exist to bring the news to the public in a timely manner and accurate format. The news reports following the initial oil spill was strict protocol. The news stations were bringing news to the public. However, as the crisis continued on the use of figures became the primary source of news material. Every news station was vying to produce the timeliest figures and in turn sacrificed perspective, accuracy, and subsequent relief effort results. News stations have a duty to bring up to date information to the public, but at what cost? Should media provide any and all information regardless of context or variable consideration? The BP oil spill is a great example of how timeliness is not always the best news making factor. Other factors such as impact, accuracy, and outside perspective should play a certain role in tempering a news story for the public. The mass media must maintain a creative circle; a balance between repression of information and the complete exuding of every data point at every second. Somewhere in between these two extremes lies the true purpose and balance of the mass media.

Works Cited

Achenbach, Joel, and David A. Fahrenthold. "Oil Spill Dumped 4.9 Million Barrels into Gulf of Mexico, Latest Measure Shows." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - The Washington Post. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

"BBC News - US Military Joins Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Effort." BBC News - Home. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

"BP Leak the World's Worst Accidental Oil Spill - Telegraph." Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph Online, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph. 3 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

Cart, Julie. "Oil Spill Map | Tiny Group Has Big Impact on Spill Estimates - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 01 May 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

Gargulio, Jordan. Oil Spill Interview. Christian Mayeaux. April 2011.

Garriga, Matthew. Oil Spill Interview. Christian Mayeaux. April 2011.

Home | RestoreTheGulf.gov. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .

Cilcote. "Kuwait Still Recovering from Gulf War Fires - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 03 Jan. 2003. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. .