According to King and Elliott, what is the major challenge facing the media? Media users? How is it different than challenges facing the media in the past? Do they have a solution? Do you?
Your response is due by 6 p.m., Tuesday, August 31.
Please remember that I accept no late assignments. Refer to the syllabus for more details.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
In the past, media outlets were criticized when they misled the public in thinking that a news story was real when it was actually a work of fiction, they were "guided by a sense of social responsibility," as King and Elliot point out. These days, people hardly know the difference and what's worse is that they don't really care. Media outlets are abundant. The internet provides us with an unlimited amount of information at our fingertips, almost all of it for free. The media's biggest challenge is how to keep our attention, essentially by entertaining us, while still providing accurate (or as close to accurate as possible) information.
In the past, there were few news sources and everyone wanted to hear the news. These days our brains are flooded with information and we need something to catch our eye, something we want to be a part of, something we agree with.
Though the chapter offered a solution in adding symbols to each piece of information to clearly label whether it is promotional or using creative license, for example. King and Elliot do note, however, that even if a highly extensive system of symbols did exist, it would fall short of the high standard we set for ethical codes. As for me, I don't really know what the solution is. In order for change to be made, there needs to be enough people to make the change happen. In our time, people enjoy the entertainment they receive when they think they're being educated, they find it fun. Hopefully there will be a change for the better soon.
According to King and Elliot the major challenge that the media faces is how to exactly obtain money when everyone can get things within a matter of seconds. Although the media is everywhere, time is limited and thus people will pay less attention to the types of media that earn money. For example, people today view fewer commercials and so the media forces itself to add product placements to areas where people will be entertained more.
The challenge for media users is that because we live in an attention economy, all the advertisements, product placements and commercials will be directed towards that entertainment. In a way, media earns its money from the increased amounts of viewers who watch something, listen to music, enter a website or are entertained in some way. Also, much of what tends to come out of media is entertainment and sometimes the line between that and the press is very blurred. Certain films and videos that tell viewers that something is true can really be fiction. Some directors deceive their audience so they can gain popularity which then gives them more money.
Unlike the past where the challenges of the media was trying to communicate it to the people, today there is such a vast amount of it out there that the information in which everyone receives tends to be less important and thus be more infotainment.
Although King and Elliot believe that the traditional standard for media will not go back, they think that finding the ethical standards in the mass communication may solve some of these issues. King and Elliot agree that a way to apply an ethical component in the mass media would be by storytelling. Storytelling has a way of being truthful and distinguishing valid media from false media.
I agree with King and Elliot’s solution because it seems that there is no way of slowing down the media so the only way to curve its value is by increasing storytellers and gaining more truths within it.
I think that the media's main concern is trying to obtain the public's attention, and keep it long enough to earn some sort of profit. People nowadays are shocked by nothing. We play video games that simulate murder, we buy the most graphic action packed movies, and we listen to music with more profanity in it than any other words. The media has to be able to compete with these "shocking" forms of entertainment, and win us over.
When we watch television these days, we can fast forward and rewind basically in order to skip right over the commercials. Like Anthony said, this is where product placement comes in. Advertisers have had to become more creative than ever in order to simply get us to know anything about their product. We are trying to avoid these ads, and the media is fighting back harder than ever forcing us to learn that new jingle for some new detergent I think I'll never buy. But, at least we know the jingle.
In my opinion, the media is coming up with new ideas everyday to shove products down our throats, and for the most part, its working. Our attention is being held long enough, maybe not knowingly, but we still find ourselves remembering slogans and packaging, and eventually picking up that detergent in the supermarket.
According to King and Elliot one of the major challenges facing the media today is the hybrid of entertainment and information. “Infotainment” is on the rise as thousands of television stations, websites and products compete for our attention. Information is now presented to the public in an eye catching way so it catches our attention. With all the new ways that the media can communicate to the public it is becoming increasingly difficult for a program, website, advertisement or news article to catch our attention and keep a hold of it. In an age of instant gratification the public is becoming bombarded with information. Reality entertainment has become an increasingly popular way to speak to the public. Although some of these shows do contain valuable information they are becoming fabricated to hold the viewers attention. Whether it is a news article, television program or a website the public looks for sensationalism in their entertainment.
When speaking of the news media it has become apparent that their headline stories are chosen based on entertainment value rather than the quality or the story or the significance it holds in society. Soft news formats are present on all primetime news channels usually highlighting stories that do not have the biggest effect on society. News channels are also unethically taking paid product placement sections, such as video news releases, in their programs. These are unethical because they are biased stories that are paid for by the companies that the story benefits. This is another form of fabrication found in the media today. It is understandable why news programs use pr tools such as VNRs but is it ethical if the public is not informed that what they are viewing is paid for by the company it is promoting?
King and Elliot believe in order for the new age of “infotainment” to be ethical a set of guidelines must be set in place. I am not sure if guidelines would stop the fabrication of media from occurring. There are already guidelines in place for both journalists and public relations practitioners, and neither seem to be stopping them from using unethical practices. King and Elliot discuss how deception is against W.D. Ross’ prima facie duties, yet it is still highly in practice. Whether a story is blurring the truth or completely fake it is unethically misleading the public to believe it is true. If programs were required to put a disclaimer before the program, or if the news announced that a story was a video news release, they are not only going to lose the audience’s attention but lose money. I am not sure if there is a way to alter these practices without losing the attention of the public that the media is striving to gain. Perhaps a new set of ethical guidelines should be set in place with the rise of new media outlets. Whether or not they will alter these unjust practices is unsure, but at this point it is worth a shot.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of the problems facing the media have to do with money. Because information has no longer become a scarcity, it is no longer a viable means of economy. This forces media outlets to change their news in order to make it more entertaining, so that people will watch it, and they'll get money.
The problem with that is the ease by which information can be edited/fabricated in order to make more entertaining while decreasing credibility.
This need for money has also led to an influx of corporations having their say in the media and what does and does not air, like in the McDonald's/KVVU example brought up by King and Elliot.
As for answers, King and Elliot don't offer any real viable answers because there are none yet. I think we need to ride this "new media" wave a little bit further in order to see clearly what can and cannot be done in the name of credibility.
According to King and Elliott, the major challenge facing the media is what we touched upon last class - that the lines between entertainment, information, news, have all blended together to the point where the consumer cannot tell which is which. For us, this direction of the media makes us skeptical of news stations, knowing that the information given may not be true or not. Nothing, in a sense, is real anymore - reality shows are fabricated, news anchors are actually representatives of political parties behind the scenes, a political talk show distorts statistics in its favor - what can we actually trust in the media?
When the social trust in the media goes down, it creates schisms, much like we see today, in that people don't tend to watch the same programs as one another to gain news. It hinders democracy, because we are not aware of what is truly going on, and our communal relationships have disintegrated, lowering conversations about politics, debate, and general interest in all.
In a way their solution entails regulations for medias to shape them towards more ethical mediums, preventing runaway sensationalism and redundancy. I'm not sure if something like that would be plausible, unless we had politicians ballsy enough to challenge corporations motives, and that seems like a possibility in the very distant future.
according to King and Elliott the major challenges facing the media is that they are all through brands and product placement. Everything now is based on entertainment and the Internet. The are constantly trying to keep the publics attention and make sure we are entertained in every way. We want to hear news that we can relate to and agree with but also catches our attention.
At the same time journalists must always tell the truth through a moral obligation. They are expected to present the truth but they do not want to lose the interest of people. In other forms of media they can fabricate truths and make up events so everything it more interesting.
I agree with their solution but we can also combat this by making news more user friendly and easily accessed. We can give more options for news sources and point things in new directions it will take time but it can work.
Last class we touched on the fact that it is harder and harder to keep the public's attention, and I think that King and Elliot agree; that's the most troubling challenge facing the media and media users. I thought about it, and all of those things listed at the beginning of the piece such as "blogvertising" and "infotainment" wouldn't exist if the public were happy with just information in news and just entertainment as separate variables. It's gotten to the point that even weather forecasters have to put on a show or a consumer will just change the channel to something more flashy. That's ridiculous.
It also has to do with the problem of reality TV. It's almost not surprising at all that those hunks of junk are scripted. If a program such as The Real World were just people living together, getting along, playing nice, no one would watch. We're in a society that loves controversy, and I think that's why we're also drawn to be deceived as they pointed out in the article.
It's not too different from the challenges of the past; this is an ongoing problem...people are constantly dissatisfied and always searching for something new.
As far as a solution...I have no idea. I'm starting to get a sick sense that we're doomed as a consumer country...doomed in the sense that one thing will never be enough. Just like tangible books aren't enough, we need them to be on screens. We need our phones to also have computers a part of them. I wonder what the world will combine next.
It seems that King and Elliott believe that the main problem facing the media is how to capture the consumers attention. According to the chapter, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for a number of reasons. Mainly, it seems, there is simply more available to media users to choose from. As the chapter stated, information is not what will run the economy, attention is.
With so many outlets to choose from, it becomes difficult for the media to stay true to their normal ethics while continuing to thrive. Because of this, we see so many "reality" tv shows that are really fake, and so many hoax videos made to lead consumers on. It is especially hard for journalists who historically have not had to think about necessarily entertaining their users. That is very different today.
It seems the main problem facing media users is who to trust their attention to. It used to be that there were a few news outlets, and fewer ones that could be always trusted. Today, every outlet is vying for everyone's attention, and it is difficult for a media user to know when they are being played.
For example, I was on the MTV "reality" show "Silent Library" last year. Supposedly, the show is about a team of kids doing ridiculous challenges in a library, with the only rule being that you cannot disturb the other people around you.
Claiming that they use Frankenbiting would be a gross understatement. They film happy and disappointed reactions first. Then they film us doing some tasks. Then they film the host announcing that we are about to do the tasks that we just did. Then they film the intro to the show with us walking out.
The kicker? It is filmed in a studio set up to look like a library, with paid actors sitting at tables, pretending to be perturbed when we make too much noise. I couldn't believe how fake the show was.
It is different than in the past because of the vast amount of outlets available, and ways to get information out there. Youtube allows everybody to post videos about whatever they want. My roommate two years ago was the first person to upload the video of that journalist throwing his shoe at George Bush because he taped it and quickly put it on the internet.
I do not think that there are any solutions yet. The media is slowly advancing and finding ways that they can continue to make money, but they are so far unable to put back the trust that they are ruining by moving towards infotainment.
I watch The Daily Show way more often than I watch any "real" news show, so no I have no solution at this point.
This was a very interesting and insightful article(?) on what happens to be plaguing the media. King and Elliot brought up the point that capturing people's attention is almost impossible nowadays unless you have something interesting for them to be reading and/or watching. What ends up happening is that people begin to make their ordinary boring lives/news more interesting by embellishing and fabricating situations or reporting on superfluous things. Thusly blurring the lines between entertainment and news.
Media users face the problem of a constant bombardment from information and advertising. This desensitizes us to all web things making only the most interesting stand out. However, what is considered the most interesting isnt necessarily the most honest.
In the past the information was a precious commodity, but now attention has become the gold. Back when the press could count on people reading what they have to say more time could be spent on content. Now audiences arent guaranteed so content has to be more interesting in order to attract people.
I feel that one of the only solutions would be to start charging people for internet news content. That way you have an established reader base that you know cares about the content you put out, and the stories you write can go back to being content based as opposed to attention grabbing. The media needs to make money, and if you eliminate the need to advertise and attention grab, then you can go back to the old ways of the press.
What personally strikes me and strikes King and Elliot as the most challenging thing in the media would be the trust level that no longer exists. They stated in the chapter that brands used to be built on long term trust levels and now companies are ignoring accuracy and creditability and building their brands for “a limited life expectancy”. Although branding isn't the media as a whole they are definitely part of advertising which is a huge part in the media today. The difference between this problem today and this problem in the past is that people used to trust their brands and really care and now we don't think twice about not trusting a brand because its the norm. If we cant trust something as simple as a house hold name how can we trust the media knowing that they support these ad agencies and companies. I don't think that there is a solution because another thing that the media needs in order to have as much control as they do is money. The main source of income is coming from these untrustworthy brands of America. Until advertising gains more boundaries we may not get our trust back.
King and Elliott touched on a variety of challenges facing the media. The biggest issue out of all being that today, the news, promotion, and entertainment are all mixed together "in an endless array of offerings." They state that contemporary infotainment and related hybrids blur the boundaries between actual fact and fiction which then creates confusion in values, conventions and audience expectations. King and Elliot stress that the one thing that has the upmost value is the customer's attention. The audience's attention is mandatory for business to keep going, and since now more than ever people are losing attention faster and faster, an element of entertainment needs to be brought into the news or whatever it is an audience is viewing/reading. As stated in the text, many news organizations are concerned with the declining audiences for news programs and publications so they turned to "infotainment" to capture the public's attention. "Today's editorial decisions are often based as much on a story's ability to entertain audiences as to inform them."
The challenges facing the media now are very different than what they were in the past. As mentioned previously, today with the convergence of forces in media make it increasingly difficult for both content creators and their audiences to distinguish between what is news, entertainment, and commercial speech. The traditional communication boundaries and standards have been swayed. There has been an ongoing increase in volume and acceptance of hoaxes, forgeries, and deceptions in entertainment and other media.
King and Elliot make some suggestions in regards to solutions to the media challenges. One suggestion being that everything be copyrighted so that no one can legally use or adapt the work without getting permission for the copyright holder. Another would be to encourage authors to make personal statements about their work that could be found on a disclosure database online.
According to King and Elliot, the main challenge facing the media is being able to grab the attention of the audience and hold onto it. The media plays a crucial role in the nation’s economy and with the recent fusion of all media outlets, it has become increasingly difficult to keep the public entertained. King and Elliott maintain that media has blended together whether it be news, promotions, or entertainment, thus resulting in the infotainment age. It has become difficult to distinguish fiction from non-fiction in the media and as a result the audience is looking for more and more entertaining ways to obtain their news. People are raising the bar for what’s entertaining and are more often ignoring media that is not entertaining.
I don’t believe there is a simple solution yet due to the complexity of the situation. King and Elliot suggest a method of disclosure. But the complexity of the situation is this; many people have lost faith in certain news networks due to their attempt to embellish the news. However, they are trying to embellish information because entertainment is what keeps the attention of the audience. It is a vicious cycle and I’m not sure if there’s a solution available just yet.
In the past the media struggled to reach broad audiences and convey newsworthy stories to the masses. Today the opposite is true; media outlets are abundant and information is available at our fingertips 24/7. The new challenges that face the media are centered around distinguishing what is newsworthy from what is solely entertainment and broadcasting that newsworthy information in a way that will grab the attention of modern viewers/readers/listeners. Because of the overabundance of available media, our attention as consumers of the press is very selective; we only pay attention to what we're personally interested in. Because of this, legitimate press outlets struggle to gain our attention while competing with less authentic distributors of news and gossip like blogs and gossip magazines/websites. The challenge is in composing attention-grabbing stories and headlines while still providing facts and important information rather than fluff and entertainment.
I agree with the idea that compelling storytelling is perhaps the best way to go about tackling this challenge. If you can convey a newsworthy story in a narrative that makes an emotional or attention-worthy connection with a reader/viewer than you can get across important information within the frame of an interesting story. It kind of turns news reporting into a form of entertainment.
The media today faces the challenge of entertaining and informing at the same time.
Because of the abundance of information available to us in all forms of media, people choose to pay attention to the media that is going to inform them, but also amuse them.
On the other hand, the major challenge facing media users is truth. What is true and what is not true? If something is presented as news, does that make it news? If it is news, does that mean it is true? In today’s society, not necessarily.
Another factor that should not be overlooked is advertising. No publication is going to print, upload, or report on a story that is going to hurt the reputation of a major financial supporter. Therefore, this would skew what the pubic receives as news.
In the past the media operated under a set of moral obligations. Reporters reported the truth. If a publication printed false claims, its reputation suffered. Papers were sued, fined and often lost readers.
Elliot and King feel that because the media has such an influence on society, the media should practice disclosure. They say as long as disclosure is practiced, meaning intent is put up front, then media can function as it does because he people aren’t being lied to or victims of “unjustified harm". This way people won’t take the information they receive at face value, but instead contextualize it. I agree with Elliot and King to a certain extent. As they put in quite simply, storytellers should tell the story to the best of their ability.
King and Elliott talk about how in this new age of information where we can reach anyone in the world with the click of a button, media outlets are -ironically- having trouble reaching their consumer base. The media today has to compete so heavily for the attention of its followers that it often falls to the wayside when people choose to give entertainment their time and attention.
This struggle for media outlets to reach consumers hurts the consumers as well. With the level of constant bombardment of information we have reached as society consumers have become, again ironically, ill-informed about matters of urgency and public importance.
King and Elliott talk about the brand loyalties that existed in the past. People would rely on news sources for truth and honesty and stick with that source because of its reliability. Today, however, people are willing to sacrifice these things for a, “more entertaining experience.”
A possible solution they came up with is a sort of warning label system, different symbols for different standards of the media (journalism, PR, advertising, etc.). That way people would know exactly what they are reading and exactly how to perceive it, no more mistaking editorial TV shows as hard news or trusting bloggers to report the hard facts.
I believe they may be onto something with this, however that doesn’t solve every problem with the media and its consumers. I think the only way to reaching a solution with the way the media works today is through people shifting what they value the most in the media. To me, however, is highly unlikely.
Here is (at the end of the clip) JFK's opinion of what the press is for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3T3gWKURc8
Sounds very much in conflict with what it does today.
Post a Comment