Both liberal and conservative groups have underscored the principle of "the marketplace of ideas" for the free discussion of important issues. The notion implies that the "best" ideas if discussed in an open group with all relevant parties engaged and involved, will rise to the top. More important, an open marketplace of ideas will help people who do not understand an issue to get positions from all sides. Finally, through open discussion, a democracy (government by the people) can build a "consensus" of opinion toward the best solution to a social problem or a public policy issue.
These ideas are at the heart the media democracy and free expression principles in the U.S. Constitution, and are reflected inSemiotics and the subfield of social semiotics, which study how humans construct meaning for themselves and others. They are central concerns for communication scholars and key to understanding how democracies work.
We have for a long time trusted in and depended upon an objective professional news media to act as gatekeeper and provide us with the kinds of information we need to integrate in and to sustain our democratic form of government. Indeed, media systems dependency theory says we have become increasingly dependent on the media to understand and act meaningfully and effectively in our social world.
All mass media are, at their core, telling the stories of their culture. By their sheer reach, their mass-transmitted messages have the power to define and bind a culture. Review pages 205-209 in Chapter 15 of the International Communication Association's Handbook of Journalism Studies, which explain the storytelling role that news plays in a culture. It says news is analogous to that of myth because it uses familiar, recurring narrative patterns that help explain why it seems simultaneously novel, yet soothingly predictable.
Activity
Before you tackle this exercise, please make sure you have read the materials at all of the links in this discussion question. When you are have finished your readings, please identify a recent major news story and examine how it is being/was covered by the following web sites:
Huffington Post
Townhall
Politico
Think about how the framing, and agenda-setting, phenomenisticfiltering, and other relative bias of news media outlets - broadcast, print and online - are driving the story and influencing public attitudes culturally and politically.
Then, please post a response by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 30 that addresses some, all, or some mix of these questions in a cogent response:
1. What is the issue/story you analyzed for framing, filtering and relative bias; and
2. How are the "legacy" and "new" news media influencing public attitudes culturally and/or politically on this topic?
Addressing some or all of the following questions can help you with your analysis:
- What is similar in presentation style in all three websites? What is different? How does their coverage compare to the traditional mass media you reviewed?
- What is the political stance of each website? How do you know? Does the stance seem "reasonable" even if it is from a position you might or might not agree with.
- Where does each website gets its "news" information? Do you trust those news sources? If so or not, why?
- What do you think of the bloggers? Would you want to blog on this website?
- Would you go to this website for more detailed information and discussion of an issue in which you were interested?
- How well do you think these websites function as "spaces" for free discussion? Do you think these kinds of discussions are, in general, helpful to the democratic process? Why or why not?
- Do you think that V.O. Key's notion of elite pluralism still applies to how the media influences politics and the social world?
- What standards should apply to journalistic practices?
- Should there be government regulation of media practitioners (bloggers, journalists, videographers, etc.), media outlets, and / or media content? What does history suggest?
- Do you see a link between media literacy and John Fiske's semiotic democracy (freedom to make personally relevant meaning)?
Please include urls to the story you examined.
Your objective here is to ponder how information sources such as these may be turning the Internet into an alternative "public square" to the mainstream mass media. Topic 2 - Role of the Journalist
What is the role of the a "journalist"? How does that role reflect semiotic freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights?
Before you begin this activity, please read Chapter 65 in the 21st Century News: A Reference Book to get a better sense of the definition of news, the journalist's role in producing news, and the economic factors affecting the news business. You might also review this video on the impact of the Internet on the definition of "news":
Used to be journalists covered news events as objectively as humanly possible. Now we have bloggers who write in real time and pundits, who
https://youtu.be/z79MoWZOFfw
analyze the news and offer their opinions. And a quarter of people 18-29 years said in one survey that they turn to "The Daily Show" and "Saturday Night Live" to learn about and understand the news.
Activity:
Before you tackle this exercise, please make sure you have read the materials at all of the links in this discussion question. Then, address some, all, or some mix of these questions in a cogent response:
What are your thoughts about political media as entertainment, such as "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central, "The McLaughlin Group" on CBS, "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show?
Are these shows informing, entertaining or editorializing? Should news be entertaining?
Can bloggers and pundits crossing the line to editorializing with their biased questions, interpretative news and public advocacy? Or are they adding the kind of texture and depth to the news that unbiased writers can't offer?
Do pundits give journalists a bad name? What exactly qualifies one to be a "pundit"? Is Jon Stewart a pundit? Chris Matthews? Larry King? Lou Dobbs?
What about the people who are recording history in real time as part of what futurist JamaisCascio calls "participatory panopticon" - the personal photographic and video content on the Internet that he believes can be utilized as an up-to-date, authoritative source on all human activities. Are such reports objective truth of the kind the late Ben Bradlee, John Seigenthaler, Mike Wallace, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow and so many other 20th century journalists worked so hard to present?
In fact, what makes the information credible? How can we be sure?