Fox News- How fair is their reporting?

(What Fox News hoped their report would do to Obama's campaign)

How is the president responding to Hurricane Sandy?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1932595372001/how-is-the-president-responding-to-hurricane-sandy/?playlist_id=903226511001

This is a report portraying Obama somewhat negatively. The host says, "nice and dry with the Romney campaign... and is not [the reporter who is at the White House] with a look of how Obama is handling this emergency different from the last one"

- Informative and Superficial
Very superficial. Although, it is supposed to be an informative report. The journalist talks about how during the problems with Syria Obama continued his campaign and now he is all of a sudden stopping, as if he is is trying to be a good president.

- Accurate and Truthful vs False and Deceptive
I think it is pretty deceptive. Although, it is based on facts the way the journalists use the facts make it seem a certain view.

- Objective vs Biased
It is biased. Although, he is telling the truth and using truthful quotes, he only highlights certain aspects and makes Obama look negative.

- Pluralistic vs Insular Viewpoint
Pluralistic- the result of the elections will effect the entire world.

- Balanced vs Weighted Side

It's very sided. They make it seem as if they are balanced by talking about Obama being "presidential" but then mention that Obama still managed to go to Florida for a campaign by that making Obama look bad.

It really is a shame that even in a situation like this Fox News is trying to portray the president badly and instead of showing photographs like the one's bellow they make his look evil.

News According to "Vremya"

News according to Channel 1 Russia- Evening News "Vremya"

a) List the stories that were covered, and in what order they were presented;
Baby died as a result of doctors unprofessionalism
Five children were adopted by a criminal
Russians were caught selling illegal weapons in Nigeria
Ukrainian oppositioner crossed the border
Bombing in Osetia
Russian politicians unhappy with someone's claims (another russian politician)
Spacecraft with a russian astronaut
Earthquake in Lorca
Upcoming presidential debate in the USA
Economic Crisis
A guy that takes his dog and films how the dog does human stuff
Weather

b) Comment on the scope: which news story received the most attention? Which on the least?
The story that received most attention was related to an adoption scandal. Basically, a family adopted 5 children from an orphanage and yesterday the police found out that one of the guardians sat in prison for three times- for murder, rape and thievery. This puts in question the entire system. In other words, for foreigners to adopt Russian children is almost impossible. Where, apparently, in Russia, even criminals- rapists and murderers can adopt.

c) Choose one story, and pay attention to the structure. What does it include? A lead-in? Live interview? Expert analysis or commentary? Visuals or graphics?
One of the stories was about Russians selling weapons in Nigeria. There was a slight hook but it seemed as if the news tried to ignore the story. The host first said where, when, how and why everything was happening and then added the possible consequences of the crime. 

d) Related to the previous questions, how does the particular news story look and feel? Besides what is shown, what is left out?
It felt as if the news tried to leave the story out. It was extremely short and the host tried to get over it as fast as possible. Instead of judging the people who were selling illegal weapons, they barely spoke about the crime and mostly about how the Nigerian government is judging Russians.

e)Evaluate one story in the newscast. , and pay attention to the statement and slant. Neutral? Positive? Negative? Evaluate the story according to its objectivity.
One of the stories was about a new born baby who died as a result of doctors putting too much light in his bed. He got a skin disease and unfortunately perished. The news spoke very negatively about the happening and said that we must reform the hospitals and look for doctors that are more qualified because it isn't the first time this has happened.

f) Lastly, pay attention to the sponsors. What does this say about the particular viewing audience demographic?
Most of the sponsors were advertising tea, soda, McDonalds and a shop. This suggests that they are probably trying to address the people living in cities but at the same time they aim at villagers too because a few of the advertisements were about insurance, adoption and a governmental telephone company.

Dove Evolution

I absolutely love the "Real Beauty" campaign. I honestly, believe that it's great that a company is willing to be different and show the world what "perfect' people actually look like. If not for this advertisement, I most likely would have not understood the amount of manipulation that is done to an ad before it is released. I wish that other companies would use normal looking women instead of "plastics" in other words, fake girls. If people had a different perception of what beauty is and knew that real beauty comes from within and not from what we see in the mirror, maybe we could avoid all the bullying in schools, work and home. Everyday, I countlessly hear about someone either not liking themselves or being told that they are not good enough, pretty enough or smart enough. Why don't we stop thinking that we are good the way we are? Why does the media has to trick us into thinking that to be perfect, you need to be natural and not spend hours trying to look like someone you are not. Finally, Christina Aguilera once said, "You are beautiful no matter what they say," even though most adverts just show pictures, it is safe to say: You are beautiful no matter what they show, pictures can bring you down. 

Schools Shooting: 100% Boys.

The truth is that one of the reasons school shooters are boys is because of what they are taught to be "tough" like by the media. In reality, men have emotions too. I am certain that from a young age, I will teach my sons not to be what the media tells them to be. I will be very concerned if my kids' main interest would be in guns and violence. In fact, I will discourage them from liking these things. At the end of the day, anyone could be manipulated into committing violent crimes. Yes, chances are higher if a boy is mentally unstable but just from bullying one can be lead into something as bad as killing. I am certain that if many of the boys that attended the high schools where the shootings took place were taught that they don't have to be "tough" or manly or resemble any of the traditional features that create a man, hundreds of lives could have been saved.

Put the Blame Where it Belongs: On Men

I am not a feminist. Neither am I a defender of a certain gender. But what I do believe in is equality. Equality between genders, races and ethnic groups has always been something I stroke for. Jackson Katz's article really made me think about today's society. Realistically speaking if someone commits a crime and 1000 members of a certain race are hurt, we put the role of racism in our society first. However, if women are hurt, we don't pay that much attention. I think that to improve that we should start classes on Domestic and Sexual Violence. For instance, if all the boys in our school had a few seminars on the consequences of violence and from a young age were told that being "tough" isn't good, I am sure that we could prevent many crimes. If once, Mr. Jacover brings in a speaker who will talk about violence to all the males in the High School instead of talking to girls about short-length. Our society seems to confuse its priorities. We are more worried about guys being aroused from girls displaying skin than about guys sexually harassing girls because they think it makes them cool. Again, I am not a feminist but I think that it is a lot more important if high schools will teach boys about how to behave than girls about how to dress. At the end of the day, modesty is important but not as important as prevention of violent acts. 

Glee and the portrayal of race, class, gender, or sexual orientation

For me Glee was an eye-opener to the truth of the American society. At least that was what I thought until I read the "Masculinities on The O.C." which made me think deeper. The truth is that although Glee does address people of different races, sex, class and orientation the way it portrays them is completely stereotypical.

Santana

To many people the first words that come to mind, when they think of Latinas are fairly negative. They believe that girls of that origin have a lot of attitude and are promiscuous. In the TV series this is exactly what we see. Santana is the type of girl who had slept with the entire football team, had Mono several times but she is proud of it. Does this demonstrate a typical latin american girl? Probably not, the fair majority of Latinas are most probably not any of the things listed above. Although, Santana forcibly comes-out of the closet she portrays a very stereotypical idea of a lesbian. She is acting rude, full of herself and when in relationship, it is certain that she is the one wearing the pants. Finally, she comes from a poor family, she lives in a neighborhood called Laima Heights. Which makes her very, very "ghetto."


All the South American girls I know are very sweet and trustworthy. Even if they lived in a troubled neighborhood they don't act like they will fight anyone and everyone who gives them a rude glance. Where, my lesbian friends are perhaps friendly and girly, they are not controlling or rude.


P.S. Some of the richest people in America are Hispanic and they don't have the "Laima Heights" attitude.

Kurt

Kurt is a gay teenager, who is bullied due to his sexuality. The reality is that Glee does not have any gay characters that are very manly. The only other gay guy in the school (before Kurt's boyfriend switches to his school) is a football player who is preferring to stay in the closet. Yet, the fact that this happens makes gay people seem very feminine and stereotypical. Not all gay people dream of wearing dresses or becoming Prom Queen. In fact, some homosexuals are extremely manly. So, if Glee really wanted to address the issue of discrimination by sexual orientation it should have had at least one more character who is the masculine type of homosexual. If we look at the show right now, Kurt's homosexuality sometimes is brought to the extent where it seems as if the show producers are mocking homosexuals rather than portraying equal rights. 

Sugar


Sugar is the stereotypical rich girl. She judges people by their clothing, she is snobby but above all she lacks talent. According to Glee it's the money that get her through life. But are all rich girls like that? I've studied in a private school my entire life and all I can say is that a small minority of the girls are like that. This character gives an idea about what the upper-class is like. In reality, it is quiet different.

Puck

Puck is the typical "bad boy" that "slept with every single girl in the high school twice." He is extremely manly, he exemplifies brutality and makes us forgive him for anything he does. According to surveys, he is the most desirable male-character on the show. But with attitude, come bad grades, indecisiveness in life and just trouble, trouble, trouble. Characters like him are the one's that make girls want to date bad boys who will treat them badly. It is Puck's attitude and looks that make him more desirable than the Finn, who is probably equally good-looking. The fact that Puck is shown that way is making normal guys want to be "badasses" because that's what according to Glee will get them girls. 

Rachel

Rachel is the epitome of a female who needs a man in order to be happy. In season one, we seen Rachel not being extremely confident and perhaps even slightly depressed because Finn, her longterm crush, doesn't pay any attention to her. She is insecure and dresses oddly. However, the moment Finn notices Rachel, her eyes start to glow. It seems as if she is being re-born into something new, a confident female. What idea do we get from this relationship? That the moment you will get a boyfriend is when you will be happy. It is not the independence that will get you anywhere in life but rather the dependence on 

another person, a human who you didn't mean much to for the majority of your life. 

Brittany
Brittany S. Pears is the "dumb blonde." Again, another stereotype. The girl actually, says some of the stupidest things ever but her lack of intelligence is justified because she is cute. What does that teach us? If you are good-looking, even if you are dumb you will be just fine. Why don't any of the shows have a girl who is a stupid brunette? It is always, always, always the blonde cutie, who has an IQ of 55 and can barely spell her own name.




Conclusion

It seems to me as if the people who wrote the script for Glee tried to address different groups of people and portray a different view of stereotypes. Yet, I feel like they failed to do so. The "Latina" stays ghetto and carries her promiscuous image throughout the show. The homosexual guy, is always looking for a place to escape even when he does overcome challenges he brings every single mistake or misfortune in his life to the fact that he is a minority. Lastly, a normal girl like Rachel only becomes happy when she gets a boyfriend. No matter, how independent she seems, the moment Finn isn't there she is lost, upset and insecure. Therefore, the people who wrote the script are probably a group of males and females that tried to address the issues of discrimination and lack of quality.

What about Who?

The show is about stereotypical teenagers, who try to overcome challenges. Yet, at the end we get certain ideas about what society should be like and the show is not that fun, once you realize that.

Why is it that Way?

It's this way because it is easier for our brain to comprehend stereotypes. If Glee were to have a stupid brunette, guy who is desperate for a girlfriend and a very manly homosexual, it will be harder for us to comprehend it. However, since our brain already knows about a bunch of stereotypes, it doesn't take as much work to get us "hooked" to the show. At the end of the day, what producers care the most about is not the message, the acting or the scenario it is the profit that matters.

POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold: 1 movie, 2 opinions

Both, Peter Traves and Michal Phillips, loved POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold as an entertaining film, but they disagreed on whether or not Morgan Spurlock really had a clear purpose for his documentary.  Peter Traves sees the film from a positive point of view for many reasons. On the contrary, critics like the author of “Spurlock Settles For Gag, A little Food For Thought” criticize it. Although both authors agree on the fact that the film is hilarious they disagree when it comes down to the reason for the creation of the movie and whether it proved its point. Peter Traves, thinks, eye-opening look at the omnipresence of product placement and advertising in movies and pop culture.” In other words, the movie was successfully created to show the influence of media on our world. He also adds that with usage of excellent interviews and sponsorship Morgan Spurlock really demonstrated how big the role of sponsors is in todays movie industry (Spurlock). On the other hand, Michael Phillips claims that the movie is just a self-promotion of the famous director of Supersize Me (Phillips). He believes that when you leave you do think about the advertising world but you might still believe that it lacks substance and was created for fame (Phillips). Phillips added, “It's too bad Spurlock settles for so little here, beyond the surface gag.”