Love at First Click?

Love at first sight is one of the oldest clichés. What does this quote mean in the 21^st century with all the newest dating and relationship technologies? Today many people are heading to the Internet for love. So the question is can you find real love through website questionarires, email and instant messaging?

“The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating,” a study by Larry D. Rosen, Nancy A. Cheever, Cheyenne Cummings, and Julie Felt says it is estimated that 40 million Americans visit online dating services monthly and that 25% of singles have tried one. Also, 14% of singles were dating; married to, or engaged to someone they met online (Rosen, Cheever, Cummings, & Felt, 2007).

In the Baran and Davis reading, they describe the five elements, or basic assumptions of the uses-and-gratifications model. One of the elements states “value judgments regarding the audience’s linking its needs to specific media or content should be suspended” (Baran & Davis 241). This means people use the media in different ways and people view the media in different ways. Some people view online dating sites as “creepy” because you never know whom you’re really talking to. However, some people swear by them. How do you think people perceive relationships that began online? Is there a stigma attached?

Baran and Davis write, “Defenders of new media advocate the merits of using social networking websites, e-mail, and text messaging to maintain contact with a wide variety of friends,” (Baran & Davis 241) I think this idea can be related to relationships. I’m sure many of us know someone or was the person who came to college with a boyfriend and girlfriend and realized they couldn’t do the long distance relationship. However, some people still do this everyday. Do you think with technologies like webcams and text messaging, it is possible to maintain a relationship where two people barely see each other in the “real” world?

The second idea I ask is why do people turn to online relationships to begin with? In the Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual, Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch write, “The media compete with other sources of need satisfaction. The needs served by mass communication constitute but a segment of the wider range of human needs,” (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 165) For billions of people love is a human need and they want to find their “soul mate.” Has the Internet just made it easier to do that? Has it made it easier to fulfill our need for love?

The smartphone: Making all other Mediums Obsolete?

Living in a society where technology is continuously advancing, cell phones are making once popular devices obsolete. Already replacing traditional home telephone landlines, smartphones are about to evolve into next generation's source for all mediums. In Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch's "Utilization of mass communication by the individual", the refer to

"...the relationship between unique grammar of different media-that is, their specific technological and aesthetic attributes-and the particular requirements of audience members that they are capable or incapable of satisfying" (Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, 5).

In the past 20 years we have seen the Internet start to replace older mediums such as newspaper and radio. Today it now has a high viewership rate for TV and movies. In a fast paced, never stopping society, is it realistic to think these capabilities can all be replaced and become obsolete due to the smartphone?

A smartphone is a cell phone with superior computer-like abilities. The advanced mobile device offers applications such as email, Internet, and music software. Essentially a computer with telephone capabilities, the sophisticated device could potentially be the source for all other mediums.

The Internet is the best example of this theory. According to Information Week, an online survey revealed that "30% of smartphone users say they use their devices for enterprise connectivity, and 37% either occasionally or frequently leave their laptops at home in favor of their smartphones" (Wolfe, 2008). Given the increasing advancements these phone have made in a short period of time, it seems likely that they can take over this market share sooner rather than later. Looking at this trend, could you realistically see your main source of all media being your cell phone?

"Old media increasingly competes for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, and efficiently" (Baran and Davis, 240). Given this notion, the smartphone is becoming the easiest and most efficient device to access all mediums making it hard to deny that it could make all other sources obsolete.

In the chapter "Audience Theories: Uses, Receptions, and Effects", Baran and Davis explain that "...people weigh the level of the reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward" (232). This theory helps make the argument for the smartphone. Being that there are essentially no limitations, why wouldn't you choose it over any other medium? If people are weighing the level of the reward on effort, many will choose the ease of the smartphone.

Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch explain that "...individuals use communications, among other resources in their environment, to satisfy their needs to achieve their goals..."(3). If this approach is true, is there any easier and more efficient way to do this then by using a device that can access anything simply from the palm of your hand?

Is the Internet replacing Television?

Over the past decade, the Internet has become increasingly more popular. It seems like every year, a new social networking website explodes out of nowhere. First, we had Myspace, then Facebook and now Twitter. On Twitter, users can update their status to tell their friends what they are doing at the moment. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, users could “tweet” as they watched the games and could discuss what was going on in the games. If fans on the east coast can tweet what is going on during the Olympics, will it ruin it for fans on the west coast? Will the fans on the west coast still watch the games even when they know what is happening?


According to this article, “Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV’s Friend,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/media/24cooler.html?ref=television) the Internet actually can be more helpful than harmful to Olympic viewership. In fact, ratings for the Olympics were up this year, possibly because of websites like Twitter. The article also refers to the incident at the 2009 Video Music Awards where Kanye West rudely interrupted Taylor Swift. The show had the highest amount of viewers than it has in six years. The increased ratings in these already popular television programs suggests that using social media websites while watching television can actually make viewers more interested. Although they know what is going to happen, some viewers will still tune in because they want to actually see it happen. Social media websites like Twitter and Facebook allow people to have online water-cooler conversations. Do you think social media websites are positively affecting viewership? Are you more likely to watch a program if it is talked about, or do you only watch if you had an interest in it in the first place? Does it take away from the excitement if you know what is going to happen, or does it make it more thrilling to expect it?


In describing the five elements of the uses-and-gratifications model, Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch say that “in the current media environment, old media increasingly compete for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, or efficiently” (Baran and Davis 240). Do you think new media could eventually wipe out old media? Could old and new media form a friendship, as the article suggests?


The increasing popularity of social media websites help audiences be more active. Rather than discussing a new episode of a TV show or the latest current event at the water-cooler at work, we are now able to make small talk online instantly after we see or hear something. In “Utilization of Mass Communication By the Individual,” Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch suggest that “mass communication is used by individuals to connect themselves – via instrumental, affective, or integrative relations – with different kinds of others” (166). Social media websites such as Twitter help people connect instantly, while television offers more of an implied connection. On social media websites, you can actually interact with other individuals rather than just feeling a sense of connection to others who are viewing the same media content. You can share your opinion and interact with those who have similar or opposite views. You do not have to wait until the next day because you can discuss the topic immediately. Do you think this instant connection can be beneficial or harmful to audiences? As far as water-cooler discussions, if we discuss everything online immediately, will there be difficulty making conversation in person the next day?

Iraq War, Media & Politcs, Oh My!

“We want free speech for many reasons. Some involve essentially individual interests; others, the public interest or the common good. Some have to do with politics…others concern intellectual values like the truth.” (Lictenberg/McQuail)

Freedom of speech is one of the constitutional rights that are most valued in the United States. When I think of freedom of speech I consider it in relation to politics and media. I believe the war in Iraq is a topic that is covered in a very “delicate” way. Last week in the NY Times (online) the main story displayed was about the top celebrity talents and on the side in small print was a short story (with no visual aid to grab the reader’s attention) about the war. I personally feel that the war is a topic that is vaguely covered in the news. I think that if more visuals would be shown people would remember that we are actually in a war instead of being able to displace this truth far from their minds.

In chapter 14 McQuail addresses how there is a limited amount of ‘mass media space-time’ and there is only so much news that can be aired on major channels of mass communication. The problem with this is how (or who) decides what stories should be covered and how. He proposes certain factors for why and how the news gets covered, these ideas include: new organizations that belong to large corporations that have the say of what gets covered and how, economic influences (proposing stories to captivate the largest audience wheatear the story is most news-worthy or not), manipulation by government officials, media characteristics that can distort or constrain the stories (and how they are delivered.)

In this YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKSk9uwg7LI protesters fight the media and how it covers the Iraq war. In fact one of the protesters signs boldly states “media lies, people die.” They argue that the media never reports on the Iraq war in a sufficient way. They are boycotting the news coverage not for LACK of information, but for manipulating the minds of Americans into thinking that everything revolved around the American involvement in the war is good and pure when in reality they are responsible for inhumane and criminal acts. Due to lack of news coverage are we as Americans being manipulated by our media and government into believing that the war is something it’s not? Should the Media be held responsible and be obligated to cover stories more accurately so the American people do not blindly back their country?

In the reading from Baran & David (chapter 5) the idea of Social Responsibility is presented. They explain how during the time of the cold war Joseph McCarthy, was able to manipulate the minds of Americans through propaganda and was able to stir hatred towards certain minorities or people. Much like how Hitler was able to gain support through falsely advertising himself and reporting false truths, we must think of the consequences of what is reported past the initial airing. When we look at the manipulation from leaders we must demand the truth about the Iraq war. Not only so we are represented properly by our nation, but so we can support causes that are just and not misrepresented. For reasons of manipulation prevention and false “advertisement” do you think it is important that the media is held responsible for accurately showing the facts of the Iraq war?

“There’s not a seriousness to the coverage and there’s not an empathy to the coverage.” (J. Scahill)
In this YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kQXs-KMIQ&feature=PlayList&p=8BDF46EE3328D4DC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11 Jeremy Scahill discusses how the media leaves the American people blind to the reality and severity of what the Americans are doing over in Iraq. He blatantly says that the majority of Americans can NOT accurately tell you the death count of Iraqi people however almost every American can tell you the name of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s father. Is this just news coverage?


After reading the assigned reading and viewing the provided YouTube clips I think we must ask ourselves if the media should be held responsible for the lack of information provided to the people in regards to the war. Should we as Americans be forced to view the truth about the war through media coverage wheatear we like it or not? If the media covered news more accurately would we therefore be forced to stand up and say this is ‘not going to happen in my name anymore?’ Because of the lack of information and truth provided through media outlets, is America and the Media therefore misrepresenting us?

Tiger Woods: Media Interest or Public Interest?

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

Free Flow of Information vs. Too Much Information?

As students of Media Studies, we know that an important function of the media is to provide the public with a free flow of information, especially when that information is in the public interest. Indeed, Judith Lichtenberg cites the theory held by Alexander Meiklejohn in her article “Foundations and Limitations of the Freedom of the Press”, which says that the First Amendment freedoms ensure that the media can serve its “informative function: Free speech permits the flow of information necessary for citizens to make informed decisions” [McQuail 177]. However, we must ask ourselves: when is the free flow of information too much information?

Last week, as the 2010 Winter Olympics began in Vancouver, what is usually a joyous and exciting occasion was marred by tragedy. As we all know, a Georgian luge athlete named Nodar Kumaritashvili was killed during a practice run on the same day that the Opening Ceremony was held. Obviously, NBC was put into a very tough situation as a result—they had to cover the story, to ignore it would have been unacceptable, but exactly how much coverage would be appropriate? NBC made the decision to air footage of the crash, and as is the custom for most news coverage, they showed it repeatedly, in regular and slow motion, and they even showed his lifeless body being attended to by the first responders, despite the fact that he was already dead. Of course, a warning that the footage would be graphic and disturbing preceded the airing, but not everyone would have been able to see that warning.

Was the airing of this footage really necessary? Of course, a tragedy like this happening at such a major event like the Olympics is clearly something that is in the public interest, so the media has a responsibility to present this information to the public. But, when we as the public hear that an Olympic athlete has died in a horrific crash, do we really need to see the crash to understand the gravity of the situation? Or should the media trust its audience enough to know that we will understand the tragedy without having to see it?

Many news outlets have given their opinion on whether or not showing this footage was the right decision, and most agreed that the airing of the footage, despite the fact that NBC placed a warning before it, was gratuitous and unnecessary. You can read more of their opinions here: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Should-NBC-have-shown-video-of-Nodar-Kumaritashv?urn=oly,219497 (like NBC, I will warn you that this article contains a picture of the crash) and here: http://www.examiner.com/x-14552-Social-Media-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Winter-Olympics-luger-death-How-much-visual-media-is-too-much

An important factor we must think about here is privacy. Obviously, this young man had family and loved ones who surely would not want to see his final moments played out over and over again for millions to see. As Cheryl Phillips pointed out in her article from Examiner.com, Kumaritashvili’s father has been quoted as saying that he refuses to watch the footage, so why should the rest of the world have to? It should be noted that in the end, NBC was largely praised for their handling of the situation, especially after they announced that they would not be showing the footage again—though, in the age of YouTube and the Internet, footage is never truly “gone”.

But, would putting restrictions on what is too much information hinder the ability of the media to freely dispense information regarding other matters? There have been countless court cases related to the freedom of the press, and as Everette Dennis pointed out in “The Press and the Public Interest: A Definitional Dilemma”, the courts have largely held that “the free flow of information is in the public interest” [McQuail 166]. Should we accept that in order to get as much information as we can in other situations, we will have to deal with being shown things we might not want to see or know about?

Many questions are present in this situation. The readings mention that journalists and media professionals must follow a code of ethics. Do you believe that NBC handled this story professionally and in an ethical way? Do you think it was right for NBC to show the footage in the first place? What could they have done differently? What do you think proponents of the social responsibility theory would say about this controversy? Finally, would putting restrictions on the free flow of information undermine the functioning of the media?

Turned Away or Drawn In

I’m sure you’ve all heard about the recent tragedy that occurred at the Winter Olympics on February 12^th when 21 year old luger Nodar Kumaritashvili of the republic of Georgia passed away during his final trial run. Evidently, various athletes have complained about the speed of the course because it continues dropping all the way to the end where as other courses flatten out before reaching the bottom. Just to give you an idea of the speed’s reached at the Whistler Sliding Center a new world record speed was recorded at Whistler on February 21, 2009, when a men’s luger reached 95 mph during competition. Before this, American luger Tony Benshoof held the world record at a speed of 86.8 mph which he set in 2001.

Kumaritashvili crashed and was thrown into the air out of the track where he struck a steel pole on his last turn and was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. The video of his crash is extremely gruesome and I find most news coverage of his crash particularly controversial due to how graphic it is. I searched through a variety of news stations websites and I found that very few were professional regarding the incident. MTV for example has a photograph of Kumaritashvili laying lifeless on the ground after the crash with a pool of blood around his head. (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1631877/20100212/story.jhtml) Do you believe that this image is newsworthy and that it should have been posted? I then found that CNN had an image very similar on their website, however they had been sure to angle the camera so that the photograph would not have blood in it. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/12/olympic.luge.crash/index.html)

On MSNBC’s website I then found a slideshow with 27 images of Kumaritashvili before the crash, images of him in the air, an image of medical staff working on him and then images of people mourning his loss. (http://www.nbcolympics.com/photos/galleryid=412282.html#photos)

I also found that CBS had posted a video of the crash on their website which was shown up until he hit the pole and was laying motionless. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6202459n) Do you believe that it was professional for CBS to air the crash video as well as to post it on their website?

I read that in order to minimize harm and be professional in cyberjournalism that journalists must, “Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief” (Baran & Davis 121) Do you feel that MTV minimized harm when posting the photograph of Kumaritashvili with a pool of blood? What do you think that MTV could have done differently? During the time when yellow journalism was prevalent, the majority of media professionals cared little about public sensitivity then the concept of professionalism in the media came to be and its goal was to eliminate shoddy and irresponsible content.(Baran & Davis 97) When it comes to the news coverage of Kumaritashvili’s deathly crash, do you believe that no images or videos should have been aired or posted on news websites? Do you believe that any of the four news stations whose websites I posted above were responsible with their coverage of this story? Does anyone have any other news stations reports of Kumaritashvili’s death that they recall that were even more graphic?

We all know that every organization that isn’t non-profit, aims its efforts at making money which is exactly what these news stations are doing. “News organizations are driven economically to capture the largest possible audience, and thus not to turn it off with whatever does turn it off—coverage that is too contro-versial, too demanding, too disturbing” (McQuail 173) Do you believe that the majority of people would turn off news coverage that is extremely graphic such as some news stations graphic video coverage or images of Kumaritashvili’s crash as this quote implies? Also, do you believe that the crash video itself, with no close up of Kumaritashvili’s lifeless bloody body is professional to show? And, can you think of any other news stories that you feel the news should have been more sensitive with?

Olivia Kravitz