PressEthic

Jared Paul Stern is the latest media personality to try to capitalize on his 15 minutes of fame with a book deal.

New Yorkers made themselves heard at Thursday's FCC townhouse on (the lack of)diversity in the media.

In an age when we can no longer imagine what our lives were like without the Internet, it is important to remember those who seemingly have no choice. Reporters Without Borders publishes a report on how the authorities control the Internet in Cuba.

The veil debate recently rose to the surface in the U.K. following the suspension of a muslim teacher for wearing a veil, and the comments of ex-foreign secretary, Jack Straw, who said that he asks veiled women visiting his office to consider removing it. A week ago the BBC found itself caught up in the controversy, raising questions about the effect of conspicuous faith on the viewer's perception of a newsreader.

Nielson Media Research, a company that monitors the numbers of people watching individual television shows, announced in June its intention to track commercial watchers in November. According to an article in The New York Times a “battle worthy of a ‘Survivor’ episode” quickly ensued.

If they scare us, we will watch. Sadly, it's a fact that the media uses to its advantage. Will the cycle ever stop?

I’m half serious. Ever seen him on magazine covers and on television? He’s not the kind of person you would like to sit next to at a party. He’s short and fat and it kind of makes it so much easier for us to hate him rather than to try to understand him.

However, there’s something scary about U.S. media demonizing him. I told you guys in the class I had a growing problem with Newsweek. Particularly with the magazine’s covers. Well, they topped their previous covers this week with a new one which shows Kim with two small mushroom-shaped red flames on his sunglasses under a long headline three sentences long saying, “For 50 Years, North Korea Plotted to Go Nuclear. Now Kim Jong Il says it has. The long, strange history of how rogue scientists, black marketeers and a Stalinist regime have changed the rules of the Nuclear Club.”

In the past few years the delivery of news has changed radically. Also, what is defined as news has changed. Documentaries or agitprops such as "Loose Change" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," though presented as news, are often vehicles of propaganda. Love or hate their message, their power is undeniable, as Moore’s movie grossed over $200 million and was a force in the 2004 election, while "Loose Change" has thousands of daily hits on the Internet. In The New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann’s "Paranoid style: How conspiracy theories become news," examines the power these films project and how their wild theories seep into mainstream media.

Complacent about mysogyny, the New York Times needlessly softens public scandal in Israel.

I recently read an article that, to me, was intentionally biased and aimed to damage attorney Jeanine Pirro’s character. The writer, Serge Kovaleski, whose main goal was to discredit Pirro’s validity in arresting and convicting 100’s of pedophiles, sought to no end throughout the article to prove her a liar in hopes of stalling her support in the upcoming elections. Kovaleski focused his argument largely on her involvement is convicting sex offenders, which happens to be a central theme in her campaign for attorney general. Kovaleski starts the article by specifically pointing out Pirro’s accomplishments in convicting pedophiles only to use that as a springboard to tear that platform down. He begins his argument by utilizing her campaign website stating, “Her campaign site says that the sting operation, which she started in the summer of 1999, led to the arrests of ‘over 100 pedophiles—with a 100 percent conviction rate.” While Ms. Pirro’s press releases repeatedly pointed out that the crimes were felonies punishable by up to four years in sate prison for each count, a review of the cases shows that the overwhelming majoring of people received sentences that let them avoid extensive jail time.”

I read an interesting article in today's edition of "The New York Times" that discussed the machismo of Israel warriors and their "rakish nature." I thought the article really gave insight on the psyche of the Israel man. The article took an in-depth look at high-profile goverment officials who had been suspected of rape or violation of women. According to the article, in this culture, "it was common knowledge that their titles gave them that prerogative." Although the article mainly provided a history lesson in Israeli culture, I walked away asking myself the question, "Where's the accounts from these women who've been violated?" I felt like the article could have discussed more about how they were violates: what ways, how often, what were the consequences if they spoke out, ect. . .I thought those details would have made the story complete. What do you guys think? Or, maybe you may know about the culture than I do--keep me informed.

Maybe next time the staff should just open up the phone lines to readers and let them submit their own ideas. I’m sure they’d come up with slogans just as clever and at least the paper couldn’t be accused of using print space as their own comedic soap box.

In The New York Times yesterday, an article entitled, “Expunged Criminal Records Live to Tell Tales,” discussed yet another way that the Internet is affecting lives—sometimes bringing positive changes, and sometimes giving out just plain too much information. This article is an example of the latter.