As addressed in the First Amendment of the Constitution, we the people of the United States have certain freedoms, two of which are the freedom of speech and press. So where does censorship fall? This week I examined an article from BBC.com. The article, titled Internet porn ‘name change plan,’ by Jim Reed, addressed internet censorship pertaining to pornographic websites.

Recently, members of Icann, also known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, have been working on a plan to change net addresses. Instead of using the standard .com, .uk, or .org, Icann would like to implement further specifications of net addresses. For example, if enough Icann members vote to pass the plan, X-rated adult sites will have to use .xxx alongside .com. Advocates of internet safety largely support this plan because they think it will make it easier to track and block pornographic websites. On the opposition, the boss of UK’s largest adult website, Jerry Barnett was quoted as saying, “I think it’s yet another attempt at censorship…why should one particular business be pushed out of the mainstream because some people don’t like it?”

In my opinion, this is an attempt at censorship. Icann is attempting to make it easier for people to block adult websites. I disagree with this attempt at censorship. It violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech which is also interpreted as freedom of expression. Implementing the .xxx system is unfair to the entire adult web industry. It unjustly puts their websites at a disadvantage to viewers. Also, up until recently, the internet has been vastly uncensored. If Icann were to start censoring something why should adult websites be first? Clearly, there are more harmful things on the web that are not being censored.

If the .xxx naming was enforced by Icann then other websites that include violence, racism, or other potentially harmful material should be named in a similar fashion. Maybe .xxx should go along with the .com for any website that is deemed as ‘unsafe.’ Furthermore, I think there is a reason many censorship attempts on the web have failed. The worldwide web is a place for anyone to display anything they desire and they have a constitutional right to do so. The article states that less than 17% of the possible web addresses in the world are currently being used. If that is true, why not start censoring most things on the internet? Why not make a different web address for different levels of ‘unsafe’ content like the rating we see before movies or television shows?

I analyzed an article from The New York Times website titled Dry Pet Food and Salmonella in Humans by Tara Parker. To summarize, the article states that there have been eight new cases of human salmonella infections linked with dry pet food reported this year. This news is discouraging to pet food manufacturers who already recalled135 pet food products in 2006. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified 79 cases in 21 states between 2006 and 2007. Although typically the outbreaks have been among children, the CDC found that recent illnesses have involved people ages four months to 39 years old. The article then proceeds to explain how to avoid salmonella contamination by CDC standards.

In my opinion, the coverage of this article is not sensationalized. The numbers used in the article are relatively small. For example, the reporter states that 79 cases in 21 states were reported within one year. Put into a larger context, 79 people is an extremely miniscule percentage of the United States’ population. Furthermore, Parker does not include quotes from experts stating that the salmonella outbreak is an epidemic or that it is something of national concern. The article is well-grounded and the numbers used are put into context and are therefore not blown out of proportion.

Although Parker included in the article ways to prevent becoming infected with salmonella, I found that many of my questions concerning this topic were left unanswered. For one, the article never actually defines what salmonella is. Is it a viral infection? Is it bacterial infection? Secondly, the article only lists one of the symptoms associated with salmonella. As a reader, I wanted to know more about how to identify this potentially dangerous infection. I was, however, satisfied with the section of the article that explained how to prevent getting salmonella.

Parker used two sources in the article. The first and main source of the article was the CDC. The CDC is a credible source that is often used in health articles. At the end of the article, Parker includes a link to the CDC website for further information about the transmission of salmonella. The second source was a report from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Unlike the CDC, I was not familiar with this source and I was immediately more skeptical of it. I soon overcame my skepticism when I visited the MMWR website. Wisely, Parker included the link to this website in her article. The MMWR website had multiple charts and tables pertaining to the data used in the article. I was impressed by the detail and depth of this website. I also noted that the site included nearly eight references.

After analyzing the article from The New York Times website I found that the coverage did not seem sensationalized. Although many of my questions were left unanswered by the reporter, the article did provide many links to further my understanding of the topic. I also believe that the sources used in this article were credible.

I have been interested in this particular online branded community for quite some time. What was initially intriguing to me about this site, www.NowWhat.com, was that it was advertised on television. Usually, these NowWhat commercials involved people accidently getting into undesirable situations. For example, in one commercial a man opens his car door. He then reaches to grab something from the seat next to him and as he does so a car drives by and rips off his car door by crashing into it. The culprit car continues to drive on without stopping. The man in the car sighs and text appears on the screen that reads www.NowWhat.com.

Automatically I wanted to visit the NowWhat website. I envisioned that it would finish the story for me about the man and his car door. The website, however, was different than what I had imagined. At first glance, the site displays a cardboard city. There were people, cars and buildings in this city. By scrolling to the left or right of the screen, you could walk up or down the sidewalk. The site allows you to click on various buildings. For example, one building was titled “Driving School”. I clicked on this and was immediately launched into a car racing game. While playing this game occasionally my driver’s education instructor would pop up and offer sarcastic criticism on my driving skills. At this point in my tour of NowWhat.com I hadn’t found the sponsor of the site.

I exited the driver’s education game and continue to examine the cardboard city. I click on a parked red car. A cloud shedding snow appears over the car and a small box of text pops up reading, “What the hail? Check out the Driving School and learn about other falling objects that could damage your car.” Finally in the bottom corner I see a small State Farm Insurance logo and clicking on it took me right to the State Farm Insurance homepage.

I think this is a very clever interactive site. Not only does State Farm Insurance market their website by using commercials on television, they also provide games, contests and other fun things to help the potential consumer really engage in their site. It is also interesting to note that the State Farm Insurance logo is very small on the website, so the viewer doesn’t necessarily know that they are part of an advertising scheme. I personally do not buy auto insurance so the site does not appeal to me in that sense. Currently, I see dozens of insurance commercials on a daily basis. I feel as though marketing the website and not the company directly is unique. This strategy sets State Farm Insurance apart from its competitors.

On a daily basis, Americans are shown various forms of violence through different mass mediums. These mediums can include video games, music and television. Perhaps as a result of this imagining, the rate of aggression in society has seemingly increased. Concerned citizens are quick to point to video games as the culprit for changes in levels of aggression. My assignment this week was to choose one of these mass mediums and argue whether or not it impacts society negatively. My discussion will focus on violent video games and if they really do increase aggression in society.

After carefully analyzing three articles pertaining to the relationship between violent video games and levels of aggression, I believe that there is little to no correlation between the two.

According to an experiment conducted by the Human Communication Research, there was a smaller effect of violent video games on aggression than has been found with television violence and aggression. The International Communication Association launched a similar experiment. This experiment tested 150 male college undergraduates. The subjects were asked to play different violent video games. Results showed that heart rates were not affected by frustration or violent content, however, using the General Aggression Model (GAM), feelings of anger were shown to have a slight increase.

An additional study put forth by The International Communication Association involved 45 subjects from a large university. The subjects were asked to play various violent video games for 15 minutes. Following the video game engagement, participants were then asked to fill out a questionnaire measuring aggression. Results showed that there was no significant increase in aggression among subjects that were considered “culturally integrated”.

The only way to come to fair conclusions about the media’s effect on society is to carry out experiments such as the ones I have noted in my above discussion. These findings are extremely relevant to my argument because they are directly measuring levels of aggression based on video game playing. It is especially important to note that all three of the articles express a low correlation between video games and aggressive behavior.

Some people may argue that one experiment listed there was a slight increase in feelings of anger after subjects played violent video games. It is my belief, however, that playing any sort of game, whether it be violent or nonviolent, can increase feelings of frustration and anger. The competitive aspect of any game, I argue, is what can cause anger, not the violence.

I think with any problem facing our society, such as violence, people are too quick to point to a culprit. In this case, violent video games have been sought out and ridiculed because of their so called correlation to aggressive behavior. The results I presented are important because they show that there is no significant evidence to support a widely accepted theory. Society has essentially assumed this form of media is increasing violent behavior when, realistically, these articles prove otherwise.

1. Sherry, J.L. (2001, July). The effects of violent video games on aggression. A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research Reports, Vol. 27 Issue 3.

Retrieved

October 30, 2008, from University of Oregon library database.

2. Williams, K. (2006, August). High Scores: How Violence and Frustration in Video Games Affect Aggression. International Communication Association Conference

Papers, p1-37, 37p.

Retrieved

October 30, 2008, from University of Oregon library database.

3. Tokunaga, R. (2007) The Other Halo Effect: A Cultural Comparison of Aggression Following Violent Video Play. International Communication Association

Conference Papers, p1-15.

Retrieved

October 30, 2008, from University of Oregon library database.

The Democracy Now articles were quite different from those I read on CNN. For example, Democracy Now’s coverage of the story Barack Obama Accepts Endorsement of Colin Powell Despite the Ex-General’s Role in Making the Case for Iraq War, was not reported on in the usual fashion. Instead of listing facts and details about the story, Democracy Now launched a “critical discussion” between two highly qualified journalists. This discussion, in turn, provided an educational glimpse of the thoughts of two knowledgeable reporters. In contrast, CNN covered a story about eBay banning ivory sales from its site. The article was complete with facts as to why the ivory was being banned plus additional quotes were provided from people speaking on behalf of eBay. These articles, although quite different from one another, were both interesting and educational.

Another thing I noticed was that although both of these media sources covered the campaign, they covered different stories surrounding the campaign. On CNN there was an article pertaining to Obama visiting his very ill grandmother while on Democracy Now there was an article about an Obama campaign volunteer being assaulted. That story was hardly detailed enough. Titled, Obama Campaign Volunteer Assaulted in Wisconsin, this article was found under the “headlines” portion of the website. The story is too concise and is only one paragraph long. There was a brief description of what happened followed by a quote from the woman that was attacked. It is also important to note that there is no author listed in relationship to this article, therefore, the reader does not know what sources the article used or if it was written by a qualified journalist. The CNN story covering Obama visiting his ill grandmother was titled with the author listed right beneath it. The sources for the article were sited and quotes arose from people involved with Obama and his grandmother

Gathering from what I read in articles from both CNN and Democracy now, I can conclude that the journalism styles are completely different. Although Democracy now was interesting to look over, many aspects of it were not informative enough. It made me question who the authors were, what sources they used and it any of it was creditable. CNN’s articles were all laid-out in a similar format to one another but they were easy to follow and provided good insight and facts pertaining to the topic of discussion.

We are finally within 21 days of the presidential election. Now, more than ever, United States citizens must rely on the continuous media coverage for up-to-date facts, stories and debates concerning the presidential candidates. Appropriately enough, my assignment for “Mass Media and Society” was to carefully examine three days worth of election coverage from one media source. The media sources I chose were the Fox News website (www.foxnews.com) as well as (www.cnn.com). While analyzing these articles it was requested that I look for roles that the media fulfilled. These roles were based on a book written by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman called, “The Press Effect”.

After reading articles of political news coverage from the Fox News website, it is my personal belief that the Fox News website reports from a conservative biased standpoint.

Over the course of the past three days I read six articles about the election. Out of the six articles I read, all of them had a prominent “press as storyteller” role and three of them also had a “press as psychologist role”. In one particular article, Obama Unveils Economic Proposals, as McCain Vows to Fight for Main Street, Senator Obama was criticized for voting differently during the primaries on the proposal in question. Furthermore, various quotations from Senator McCain regarding Obama’s integrity were interwoven into the article. There were also quotations concerning Senator McCain’s political decision, none of which displayed him in a negative light. In hopes of finding more evidence for my claim, I compared the Fox News article to an article, covering the same story, from CNN.com. The article titled, Obama Details His ‘economic rescue plan’ contained similar information but the article did not favor one candidate over the other. In fact, in the CNN article I found the “press as custodian of fact” role to be the dominant one. The article outlined the facts in an informative fashion thus furthering the reader’s understanding.

The “press as custodian of fact” role is important because it allows for fact based skepticism. The “press as storyteller” role is flawed in that only certain facts are chosen, which can create an unfair biased view for the reader. Although the article on economic proposals had facts, they were only facts that impacted Obama negatively. The “press as psychologist role” is also misleading. As I already stated, the Fox News articles tend to indirectly question certain characteristic of Obama. I say “indirectly” because the authors of these articles do not directly bash Obama’s personality rather, they use quotations from McCain and other McCain representatives. I do believe, however, that this is still considered the role of “press as psychologist” and even the “press as storyteller” role because the authors are selective about the quotations that they use.

I believe that in good journalism, “press as custodian of fact” should be the dominant role because it allows the reader to gain an unbiased understanding from the media. As I outlined previously, when the media takes on roles outside of the “press as custodian of fact” role, the material can seem overly biased. In this case, “press as the storyteller” and “press as the psychologist” caused many of the Fox News articles that I read to seem unfairly biased toward the democratic presidential nominee.

I have heard tales of blogging- celebrities creating their own blogs so that they may once again stand on their soapbox and preach to the world, ignorant people with misconstrued facts forcing their opinions on others, waiting to get a rise. As an outsider, blogging did not seem like it was something I would ever involve myself with. Now, I don’t want to mislead you, I have my convictions, opinions and thoughts, and boy do I stand by them, but why is it that others need to hear them? Personally, I am not one who is easily persuaded so how could I believe that my arguments could persuade someone else?

I am from the very liberal and extremely opinionated city of Portland. Naturally, my family fits right in. I have a father who knows the scientific name of over 100 plant species. My mother, in recent years, has been frequently absent due to work. My brother is eccentric. He came out (of the closet) sometime during my freshman year of college when he was a junior in high school. “Coming out” seems like a bit of an understatement, I mean, he literally leapt 50 feet out of that closet and landed in a pair of stilettos and fishnets. Since then he has developed a taste for the finer things such as Mac makeup, designer sunglasses and MY clothing.

This is my junior year at the University of Oregon and I decided to take J201 to break up my schedule, which is usually heavily loaded with science courses. I am a human physiology major and I hope to someday get into sports medicine. Besides my academic profile, I am a tall accident prone individual who loves camping and running. I hate ignorance and grudges and believe in second chances. I love being centered and peaceful. I am level headed but spontaneous and I have never been coordinated enough to dance.

Anywho, I was somewhat pushed into the blogging world. I started this blog as an assignment for an entry level journalism class I’m taking this quarter. Each week we will have assigned topics for us to blog about. These blogs will be arguments of mine either agreeing or disagreeing with the topic of discussion.

So where does this leave me? I have not decided how this relationship will go, the relationship between my blog and me. Blog, Piper, Piper, Blog, [shake] it’s nice to meet you. I’m skeptical of you and maybe you are of me but I promise to do my best to provide well rounded arguments and opinions. It’s nice to meet you, let’s have a go at it.

]]> http://pbradley3.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/introductions/feed/ 1 pbradley3 family-081