One of the main objectives of the press is to act in the interest of the public, but where is the line drawn between media interest and public interest? Society in general, and more specifically, our generation is immersed in technology and the media. We constantly need to know what is going on with whom and we need to obtain our information as soon as possible.
Social responsibility theory analyzes the pros and cons of the amount of freedom the media should have and when control should be enforced. When discussing this theory, Baran and Davis say that “these controversies are not easily resolved… the conflict between our basic belief in freedom of press and our desire to build a humane, meaningful society in which all people can live safely and with dignity” (Baran & Davis, 97). Is there any way to compromise the amount of freedom the press should exert when the safety and dignity of an individual or the public is at stake?
The media provides various outlets to receive news, but is it always of what is in the public interest, or do they just find a way to mask their own interest by appealing to the public?
Celebrity culture has gained popularity and although athletes are recognized for their talents, once scandal is involved, it seems to overlook any other aspect that defines them. Even people who aren’t sports fans all of a sudden find a spark of interest once celebrity statuses are negotiated by scandal. Tiger Woods held a press conference to speak out about his affairs and offer an apology. The 13 and a half minute apology can be summed up in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_tiger_woods
Tiger Woods achieved much success in his golf career, but it was this scandal that gave him a great deal of attention. In discussions on the press and public interest, Everette E. Dennis explains that “the press/public interest would be measured in terms of the degree to which the press fostered the free flow of information and satisfied the justifiable information needs of its consumers” (McQuail, 170). With many celebrities, people often feel a closer connection to them when they learn of their personal life, but are their personal lives really of public interest? Or is it the media that has triggered the public to think that it is?
Dennis also mentions the idea of a free flow of information as “…allowing the purveyors of communication maximum freedom, the means for the free flow of information to the public is determined” (McQuail, 165). The public puts a greater trust in the press when they receive honest and abundant information, and when there is not a free flow of information from one media outlet, they will turn to another. The media has made it as simple as a click of a button to get any information on any topic. You probably know who Tiger Woods is, but unless you are an avid golf fan, you will probably be able to estimate the number of affairs he has had closer than the number of PGA tours he has won. Do you think the public’s need to know comes from their own personal interest or from an idea instilled by the media?
Posted by Michelle Squires
It seems that the line between media interest and public interest has become a dotted line. They are interconnected now. The public does have that drive to want to know everything that is going on in people's lives, and the media gives them this information. Also, the public does somewhat tell the media who they want to know more about. This is partly how the media knows who to tell the public about. They feed off of each others wants and needs. I have to admit that while I do know Tiger Woods was an amazing golfer, I do know more about his scandalous love live than his golfing career and the number of tours he's won or played in. Part of the reason I think people are more interested in his affairs rather than his golf career, other than the obvious reasons, he is attractive. The public has thought so for years or else he wouldn't be the one featured in magazines such as People, it would be some other golfer.
ReplyDeleteThe social responsibility theory is "used to guide and legitimize most media operation in the United States" (Baran & Davis 98). Without the interest of the public, the media would be able to control what they think. Since that is not the case, it is the media's responsibility to regulate itself to the desire of the public interest. The media knows what sort of things interest the public and they feed us the information based on what they know of it. For example, the public is interested in "pretty" or "attractive" people. Which is why Tiger Woods' personal life is featured in the media, as is President Obama's, and Sarah Palin's.
Without each other, the media and public would be in very different situations today. The media can't survive without the public interest. The public can't survive (socially) without the media. While it may seem that they equally need each other, that is not the case. The media is a step ahead of the public. The media knows what interests the people, but they have the official say and presentation of what the public will ultimately know and view as important. McQuail suggests that the "social responsibility theory proposes that the media take it upon themselves to elevate their standards, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and disinterested guidance they need to govern themselves" (McQuail 184).
I think it is difficult to say whether the public's need to know comes from their own personal interest or from an idea instilled by the media, because in some ways i believe it is a combination of both. Doesn't everything in life have variables? It is the same with the media. There has to be a small interest there in the first place before the media can blow a story up in our faces, which we then become more interested in and see as a story of high importance. Unless this trend ends, the public will always want to be in the know, and the media will always be there to share that information with them.
The Tiger Woods scandal has been one big roller coaster. It started off with a domestic abuse issue between him and his wife, and has now turned into how many women he has managed to sleep with. Due to TIger's high profile this story has managed to be the biggest story of the decade (arguably of all time). Truthfully, i think its unfortunate considering this has to do nothing with TIger the athlete, rather him as a person.
ReplyDeleteWe as a culture are deeply obsessed with peoples personal lives. These high-profile people cant go one day without seeing paparazzi. They are constantly followed and bothered. This presents and unsafe environment for them and their families. Baran and Davis refer to the Social Responsibility theory as to how much access or freedom the media should have in times such as Tiger's. This is a sticky situation that is hard to follow. They go on to say that , "these controversies are not easily resolved....and our desire to build a humane meaningful society in which all people can live safely and with dignity" ( Baran and Davis 97).
However, in this case i think Tiger and his families living situation is truthfully unsafe. When someone has to go in hiding for multiple months, how can that be safe? When his kids are followed to their nursery school and the addresss is given in publications, what does this say about the safety of his Family?
I think its rather hard to distinguish whether this story is in the publics interest or the medias. I think in many situations that it is the publics interest. However, with a story of this magnitude i think there is more media interest then publics. The media can make millions of dollars off of this story. They have already gauged the publics interest, so why not capitalize off of it. They know the public will stay interested in the story as long as there reporting on it. Many news outlets have reported rumors just do gain the publics interest knowing there not true.
In our country free speech has managed to allow us to speak our mind with no restrictions. According to McQuail, "We want free speech for many reasons. Some involve essentially individual interests; others, the public interest or common good". I believe that Tiger's situation should give us reason to go back and revise the medias input. There should be strict restrictions on how to report on a story without going overboard. I understand that this happens to be people's jobs, but ultimately there using a family conflict and turning into their own profit.
I think its about time we leave Tiger Woods and his family alone. Obviously this story will never die , but the man has been kicked to the curb multiple times when he's already been down. How much more beating can him and his family endure. This is a "personal/private" matter and should be exactly that. We as a society have already found out the shocking part (14 mistresses). I believe its now time to give him a break and have him work out things with his family. We all know how important family is in times of hardship, and thats what TIger needs to help restore. Even though i don't approve of his actions, i think everyone needs second chances. After 4 months of reporting on this issue, i think it's time we move on and concentrate on Tiger the athlete not the "bachelor".
Michelle asked if we think the public’s need to know comes from our own personal interest or if it came from an idea instilled in us by the media…
ReplyDeleteI answer that with ease when I say it is completely the public’s fault. If we weren’t interested in who Tiger slept with, then the media wouldn’t tell us. It’s a business. They need viewers. The media gives the people what they want…that’s what makes them the media. I feel like people are so quick to blame the media for our society’s problems. Let’s be honest…no one is making anyone watch the Tiger Woods coverage; people are doing it on their own. To me, media interest and public interest is the same thing. The media is interested in what the public is interested in. If that wasn’t the case, then who would care about what the media had to say? Time to look in the mirror people! Maybe we should stop worrying about the lives of others and focus on the betterment of our own lives…but who am I kidding, there is never time for logic, right?
In chapter five of Baran and David, they speak about social responsibility. I found this concept particularly interesting. I agree; we must be accountable for our actions if we want to make strides to form a more intellectual society. However; Baran and David gave examples from the Cold War and Joseph McCarthy…and I think one of our classmates even used Hitler as an example. Am I the only one that finds this a little extreme? I mean, is the U.S. media really brainwashing us that badly that we are making comparisons to socialist leaders? I’m pretty sure it’s our apathy that did that. Don’t get me wrong, we should definitely be aware of our culture’s flaws, and our obsession with the media is certainly one of them. But until people are lined up in the streets looking to execute their neighbors, I’m still going to tune in to see what Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie wore to their Christmas party.
I believe McQuail hit the nail on the head with this take on social responsibility. It “proposes that the media take it upon themselves to elevate their standards, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and disinterested guidance…” I agree with McQuail. The media should undoubtedly focus on things with more substance. However; would people watch? President Obama’s stimulus package just had its anniversary. For an election that brought out so much media attention, you’d think that would at the top of every news media headline. But you’d be wrong! “Tiger speaks to the fans!” No one could convince me that a channel such as CNN or C-SPAN has producers that would rather play Tiger’s speech than discuss President Obama, but they need to show what the public wants. Public interest….media interest…it’s all the same.
As a society, Americans are infatuated with the lives of the rich and the famous, desperately wanting to know how the other half lives. This is not necessarily a new pastime but with the increasing advancements in technology and the media, the lives of these high profiled people are easily accessible and readily available in all forms on various outlets. Their lives are of the public’s interest which makes them the interest of the media.
ReplyDeleteTiger Woods became an object of the media’s interest as well as the public’s interest for his phenomenal golfing abilities. This golf prodigy was not only the first person of African American descent to win the Masters Tournament but at the green age of 21 years old, he was the youngest ever to win it. As he rose to golf stardom and corporations began endorsing him, the public was intrigued, giving him the attention and the adoration that was pertinent in sustaining his celebrity. He became a role model to many and object of fascination and respect as he was portrayed as a wholesome, honest guy. Without the public’s overwhelming interest in Tiger, his talent, his endearing image, his wholesome lifestyle, the media may not have taken the interest either and Tiger may not have become the worldwide sensation that he became.
Unfortunately, Tiger tainted his own image as the domestic abuse was broadcasted all over the different media outlets on that unforgettable Thanksgiving night and shortly after, the women were coming out of every nook and cranny, telling of their disgraceful affairs with the wedded father of two. After posing proudly in the public’s eye for so many years, maintaining his moral image with his beautiful wife and children, he welcomed the interest, the media, the public, the support, the money, and the fame. But now that his façade has been broken and his true character discovered, he runs from the media and the public. Just because the coverage is not positive any more does not mean that he should be left alone and that he’s not of public interest or media interest. In fact, the public has more of a right to know after investing so much in him. Since he has put himself in the public’s eye, he cannot take himself out of it because of the scandals that have surfaced because he has already made himself to be important to them.
As stated in Barans and Davis, “all ideas should be put before the public and the public will choose from the best marketplace” (104). If the public did not have such a great interest in the personal lives of celebrities, the media would not be covering these stories. McQuail writes that “the relationship between issuer and consumer of communication is operating to the satisfaction of both” (167). As Michael writes above, it is a business so whatever the public picks out at that “marketplace”, the media is going to provide the public with it.
I think that the way to compromise the amount of freedom the press should exert and the safety of an individual is by using common sense. Unfortunately, not all members of the press have common sense, but I suppose that’s what editors are for. I think that the way that the media is regulated with compromise is by threat of a lawsuit. If the media, for example, were to publish the name of a minor who was raped, there would be plenty of lawsuits coming their way.
ReplyDeleteThe media does not always publish what is always in the public interest. Most media often publishes a “safe” topic, due to regulations. In Chapter 5 of Baran and Davis, the authors state, “in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, for example, Congress passed legislation known as the Patriot Act that imposed a variety of restrictions on American’s communication freedom. And whenever new media technologies are invented, it is necessary to decide how they should be regulated” (103).
I think that sometimes, even though the media seems to “go too far”, most writers do play it safe. Sometimes the subjects in the public interest are not exactly safe, so the media goes in the other direction. For instance, the media is going to have much easier time and fewer consequences by writing about Spencer and Heidi than they are about writing about a serious confidential threat in the government.
Celebrity lives are not really public interest, but people always love some drama. People love to fixate on a favorite celebrity villain or couple just so that they can have a little excitement in their daily lives. The media loves that people love the celebrities because it brings them more readers and viewers.
In a way, the media and the celebrities are the perfect teammates, working together to capture the public. In Chapter 13 of McQuail, the author states, “this does not mean simply giving the public what it wants; rather, it entails acquainting the public with the broad rang of possibilities and then allowing it to make a free choice within the extensive panoply” (167). McQuail is absolutely right.
Every week, Angelina and Brad discuss adding a new family member to their “bunch”, Kane West makes an insensitive comment, and Lindsay Lohan acts just a little bit crazier. The media then buys into these events and scandals, and concocts stories out of them. But the media never tells the general public, “You have to follow Brad and Angelina” or “You have to be obsessed with Lindsay’s life”. Instead, they present the public with a bunch of crazy stories and “let them” pick their own fixation. This is why one will never find a magazine solely with stories of Kanye or Lindsay; the media knows that the different members of the public will have different celebrity preferences.
I don’t think that anybody who works for the media really goes into work thinking, “I’m going to cover this story because I love Taylor Swift”, but rather “I’m going to cover this story because I know that young girls everywhere love Taylor Swift, will buy this magazine to read my article about her, and I will be able to feed my family tonight”. The interest of the media is not the celebrity, but rather the payoff of the celebrity.
The media who covered the Tiger Woods press conference were probably not thinking, “Poor Elin, I’ll cover this conference to show the troubles of marital affairs”, but rather “I hope my coverage scores high ratings”.
I definitely agree with everyone above. There has become a fine line between what is news and what should be covered, as opposed to what is personal and what does not need to be shown to the public. A lot of what the media decides to put out there for viewers and the public, is what most people are going to watch because it has become such a competitive industry that if one news program or media outlet is not playing the most recent Tiger Woods update, for example, they are not going to be the station that people tune into. The media has the responsibility to get the most up to date information out to the viewers, and that role of the media has become expected by the public. I completely agree with what Christina said where the media and people feed off each other. I do feel that the information covered by the media on Tiger Woods and his love life is disgusting and more information than I want to know. He is a professional golfer, and the Media should not focus all their time on his personal life. They did not focus in on his personal life as much before the whole scandal, so why now is every detail published all over every magazine and website page? On the other hand, people in the public eye these days know what they have gotten themselves into and should realize that with this fame comes the publicity that they are not going to be able to escape. What I find ironic is how Tiger Woods had to publically apologize to the public in a 13 minute press conference when the only person he truly hurt, was his wife. As McQuail says, “Thus by the very act of being free, the press operates in the public interest,” which goes along with the idea that the public does feel entitled to have certain information available to them. Why do we, the public, feel that we deserve an apology from a man who probably did nothing to us? Through the media coverage of him over the years, and how much information we got about this scandal, many people feel connected to him. The only other people, besides his family that I feel had the right to feel betrayed is his sponsors. Despite this, millions of people tuned in to watch Tiger Woods apologize publically.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that these kinds of stories and this media coverage of people and their personal lives is in the interest of the public and what the people want to see. As Baran and Davis state, “[…] the past thirty years have seen unprecedented growth and consolidation of control in the media industries, and as a result, gigantic conglomerates- conceivably more committed to the bottom line than to social responsibility-dominate the production and distribution of media content” (98). The line between personal life and public has become blurred and the media does not really take this into consideration any more. All that they have on their agenda is getting the best coverage and most in depth coverage of the “hot topic,” and it does not seem to matter who gets hurt in the process. It seems to me there should be a better way, or more regulation of this than there is.
McQuail states “We want free speech for many reasons. Some involve essentially individual interests; others, the public interest or common good”. In the case of Tiger Woods I think this was more the media interest than the public interest. When the story first broke the public wanted to know what was going on due to his figure in sports, but I feel like the media went overboard. It gets to a point that the issues that were going on in his life with his family, should have stayed between them. I know it is not right for a man to cheat on his wife, but I didn’t feel like everyone should know what was happening every hour. I feel like when it first came out that he was in a car accident the media covered it for the possible injuries that occurred. Something new was in the news every hour of everyday for the next few days. But when all those girls came out to reveal that Tiger was cheating on his wife it become more of the media interest. Personally I was tired of hearing about him on the news or on sportscenter. It was getting out of hand with all the coverage it was getting. But the women knew how to get themselves in the media. I believe they just wanted to be seen on the news or their name in the newspaper.
ReplyDeleteI think Michelle made a great point when she stated “the media provides various outlets to receive news, but is it always of what is in the public interest, or do they just find a way to mask their own interest by appealing to the public.” I do think they try to mask their interest because if they didn’t they wouldn’t be doing their jobs as journalist. But everyone was interested in what was going with his life outside of golf. Everyone forgot he was a golf player, but that is why he such a huge figure in sports and society.
I feel like we should have the freedom to choose what we want to read and hear about in the media. Baran and Davis stated “all ideas should be put before the public and the public will choose from the best marketplace” (Baran and Davis 104). I totally agree with this quote because sometimes I turn off my TV when they talk about subjects that I don’t want to know about or is not really important.
To go back to the idea of how celebrities are treated in the media, I was watching a documentary on Michael Vick when he got released from jail. He was released from jail in the middle of the night because he didn’t want to be the spotlight, but that didn’t work. Word got out that he was already released so the media met him at his house. There were about thirty different media outlets there hours before he got there. My point is why do we want to know when he gets to his house or what he has to say about getting released. That shouldn’t matter, but that was the media’s interest not the public’s.
It is difficult to decode whether the media are keeping the public’s interest in mind or are only concerned with their own interest and are trying to persuade the public to be interested as well. I think it is definitely a mix of both, but it is difficult to decipher sometimes. It is almost like a chicken and egg situation; did the media make something of public interest or is it in the media because it is of public interest? The lines get blurred making this question difficult to answer.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that people often feel a connection to a celebrity when they know more about the celebrity’s personal life. I do think that this is a result of the media bringing personal information to the public’s attention. Although there are some people who actively seek out information about celebrities, there are also many others who do not generally care about celebrities’ personal information unless they see it in the media. When a celebrity does something outrageous, it is all over the news in radio, magazines, and television. I want to say that the majority of the time it is not really of public interest because it is generally a personal matter that has nothing to do with whatever the celebrity is known for. However, that person is in the public eye and is often viewed as a role model or at least recognized as a public figure. “The public interest is a larger superstructure than the preferential information demands of individuals” (McQuail 166). When a person is in the public eye, they are more than likely a role model to somebody and their actions can affect anyone who looks up to them which could make their situation of public interest. I think sometimes we put celebrities on a pedestal and view them as these great people because of their accomplishments in their field, despite any poor decisions they have made. When we see celebrities as though they are on a greater level than us, we (the public) may get this false sense that they are superhuman and do not make mistakes. Therefore, this is why scandals may actually be of public interest.
We would be clueless about anything regarding celebrities if it weren’t for the media. People who excel at certain things like sports, music, or acting are generally put in the spotlight because of their talent. For the most part, people who eventually become celebrities do not put themselves out there with the intentions of being analyzed and critiqued. They just want to succeed at what they are good at and in doing so; they are put in the spotlight due to attention provided by the media. Tiger Woods is obviously a great golf player who has been generally known as just that. You know who he is even if you do not follow golf. His accomplishments are of public interest and he has become a public figure so people are just generally interested in him. He’s obviously not the first person to cheat on their spouse, but since people respect him for his talent, they want to respect him as a person as well. “Some sort of oversight or control is necessary to ensure that important public needs are satisfied. In some cases, this may mean providing provocative information” (Baran and Davis 99). It may or may not be correct to say that the information about Tiger’s affairs was information that the public needed to know, but I think that so many people respect him that it was important for them to know who he is as Tiger the person rather than Tiger the athlete. Of course, the fact that he cheated does not reflect his overall personality but it could change how a person views him and how much they respect him.
To answer Sarah; there is no line drawn between media interest and public interest. Bottom line is that if people show interest in a story, the media is going to hammer any angle out of that story until it’s perceived as undesirable. What is often forgotten about the media is that each distributor is a just like any other business and its goal is one thing: create a profit. In “Foundations and Limits of Freedom of the Press” the text describes this saying that “News organizations are driven economically to capture the largest audience, and thus not to turn it off with whatever does turn it off” (McQuail 173). The media cannot capture every opinion of the public media so the next best strategy is to show what will undoubtedly draw the most interest (For better or for worse). We have to remember that the media isn’t taking any story they chose and forcing interest upon us. As the public we hear news stories every day and often can separate the important stories from the unimportant stories.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYusb3LL4u8
Yes, the media distributes this news but seeing the public’s undivided interest in the previous video proves that their concern is more personal than forced.
Prior to his scandal, Tiger Woods was arguably the most famous athlete on the planet. In terms of the sports fan audience, public interest was higher but other segments most likely had the biggest increase in interest rate. Baran and Davis made an interesting point in the text suggesting “…ideas should be put before the public and the public will choose from the best marketplace” (Baran and Davis 104). This theory cannot be literally done but figuratively, it’s how the media essentially works. The Tiger Woods scandal created several new markets for the news. New audiences ranging from females to non-sport fans all became involved because the story had variables that connected with so many different segments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9hNiaijwY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BVXiHh95Tc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTM0WY_FGXs
Each video comes from a station and television show with entirely different demographics yet the situation at hand is exactly the same. To answer Sarah’s final question; the public’s need to know does come from their own personal interest. Television networks and stations do extensive marketing research to learn about their audience demographics and more importantly psychographics (Any attitudes personality, values, interests, etc.). They understand what people want to see and they react on this notion. If their ratings drop, it’s a direct correlation to what’s being distributed so something else will then be shown.
"The social responsibility theory proposes that the media takes it upon themselves to elevate their standards, providing citizens with the…guidance they need to govern themselves” (McQuail 184). Taking this theory and then applying it to the agenda setting theory proves as to why the media acts in the interest of the public.
In responding to this post it makes me think of the day after Tiger “Crashed” his car I remember one of my coaches saying he got caught cheating and his wife, Elin, had gone after him with a golf club. I knew too in my gut that Tiger was cheating however no one could have imagine his fall would be so great and the vast number of women he had cheated on him with. In answering the bloggers question, I think that it is both. I think as a society we are extremely interested in celebrities to begin with. And when they make a mistake the interest only increases. And the media fully recognize this and use it gain ratings and readers. This reminds of the Social Learning Theory that Baran and Davis discuss on page 98 of our textbook. To paraphrase, this theory states that without the influence the media could portray whatever stories they felt were the most important however since the public controls the ratings the media must adhere to what we as the public decide is newsworthy. McQuail talks about this very point on page 173 when he say that the media is , "driven economically to capture the largest audience" in other words to answer Michelle, it is both our wanting to see the story and the medias want to give us what we want to see
ReplyDeleteI think that Michelle brings up a very interesting point in her post, especially when she asked if our need to know comes from our own interest or an idea instilled by the media. As we discussed with framing, agenda setting, and other theories, the media has a huge amount of control on deciding what we think about, and I think that takes place here as well. I had no interest in Tiger Woods before this huge scandal broke out (nor do I really care about him now either). But the difference is, is that I’m bombarded on a daily basis with news coverage about his affairs and his apology and what his wife Elin is up to at any moment.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about the responsibility of the media, I think that the media should hold themselves accountable and be more responsible in what they choose to report on. There are far more important issues in the world that directly affect us as a society, and yet we don’t hear about them because of the constant coverage of celebrity scandals. In Chapter 5 of Baran & Davis, they ask the question, “Should media do something more than merely distribute whatever content will earn them the greatest profits in the shortest time? (97)” I can’t help but answer with an enthusiastic “YES”, but it seems, that’s not at all what media does. Instead of reporting on the issues that matter, our media outlets are reporting on this trivial issues that really should mean nothing to us. If my neighbor Joe Smith has an affair with countless women, I don’t expect the local news to pull up and start probing for interviews and trying to get Mr. Smith to give a public apology. So why do we do this with someone like Tiger Woods? I’ve never met the man, most likely never will, and yet I need to see a broadcast of his public apology?
Baran & Davis also discuss the various types of theories regarding how much control should be given to the media, and how there are certain rights that need to be protected. While I agree that the media should have a huge amount of control over what they report on, in order to not infringe upon their rights and in order to have them serve as watchdogs over larger organizations and protect the every day citizen, it does become frustrating when media outlets are given total control to report on these unimportant issues on a constant basis. It makes me wish that there were some sort of rule of how much they can report on these issues, in order to give more important issues a fair shot at air time. But by instilling any kind of rule like that, there are going to be reprecussions that might not serve me in the end, so ultimately, there is a very blurred line in regards to reporting and public interest.
Walter Lippmann wrote, “the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently (Dennis 163).” This quote sums up my feelings on this issue in regards to both the media outlets as those that deliver us the information, and as us as consumers who request and seek out the information. I think that both media outlets and consumers have their priorities mixed up when it comes to what is “public interest”. Instead of focusing on latest scandals, we should be more worried about the war, local crime, the government and other important issues that DO affect us, but because our thinking is clouded by these unnecessary issues, we aren’t quite sure what the real interest of the public is.
I think this is a hot button question- does becoming a public figure mean the main stream gets to know everything about your life? Is it our business that Tiger Woods cheated on his wife? This blog asks is there any way to compromise the amount of freedom the press should exert when the safety and dignity of an individual or the public is at stake? While I don’t believe whether or not Tiger cheated on his wife is legitimate “news” I don’t believe it is off limits or harmful to the public. The article “The Press and the Public Interest,” writes, “The free flow of information is in the public interest.” (McQuail, 166) So while maybe reading article after article on Tiger Wood’s person life isn’t going to raise my IQ, as a public figure this life story is not off limits. He accepts multi-million dollars endorsements to tell us what to wear and which credit cards to use, he’s not just a guy playing golf anymore, he put himself in the public eye.
ReplyDeleteI think the Tiger Woods scandal was also just so unexpected that it became overly sensationalized. The newspaper industry is getting worse all the time so any story that is going to sell is going to make the cover. ABC News senior vice president wrote, “but people are always looking for that extra rating point.” (Baran & Davis, 96) This is what much of the news has come too. What will sell? And unfortunately the sex scandal of a multi-millionaire will sell. And if people are going to read this why shouldn’t the media write or talk about it. Obviously people what to know. This week when Tiger gave his press conference Tiger Woods' apology raked in the ratings for the Golf Channel which brought in 521,000 total viewers during Golf Central Special Report: Tiger Woods. It’s sad but in this economy the media also has to think of their interests. If they want to be able to tell the “legitimate” news stories they have to have money and they make that money with the scandals.
The whole Tiger Woods story started off as nothing and then blew up into this full on scandal and we have the media to thank for that. What Tiger did was wrong, but if it weren't for today's media, we would not know all the intimate and private details of what really happened. The media can't help itself. It has to go into celebrities lives like it is no big deal. What athletes and celebrities do is their own business and the media does not seem to get that.
ReplyDeleteBaran and Davis ask the question, "Should media do something more than merely distribute whatever content will earn them the greatest profits in the shortest time (Baran & Davis, 97)?" I think the media should follow this question, but I feel it doesn't. The media seems to report a lot on gossip or stories involving juicy details, such as the Tiger Woods story. No one needed to know that he cheated on his wife, except for his family/friends, but the media made it so that everyone in the world knew. I think the media needs to report truth on stories that are really important, such as the economy, politics, war and health related news.
Social Responsibility Theory discusses how, "The media take it upon themselves to elevate their standards, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and disinterested guidance they need to govern themselves (McQuail, 184)." I feel that this is true with regards to the Woods story. The media simply provided their audience (citizens) with whatever they knew they would like to read or hear about. Nobody really needed to know the whole story, but we all did because the media felt that this story needed to be told in the best interest of the media audiences. I know that Tiger Woods is a great golfer and the media has elevated him to a celebrity and they have broadcasted his life to everyone and I think that isn't right, but it is what the media has come to these days.