The general public has always wanted to be informed about
current events. The more scandalous, shocking and unbelievable the news, the
more interested the masses become. Crowds would swarm in ancient
civilizations to watch brutal public executions, and these days prefer to
follow each topic of interest via: The Internet, Network Broadcast, and all
forms of Social Media. Ironically, according to Tony Rogers of About.com, “the technology
of journalism continues to improve, but young people still ignore the news”.
My question, however, is: at what point in the reporting process does the
intent of the original informational broadcast become tailored to capturing and
retaining people’s interest in an effort to broaden reach and generate advertising
dollars, instead of relaying the cold, hard, facts about subjects and how they
can affect one’s livelihood.
This week, I’ve followed three very different legal
controversies that have become well known in the media. Though the coverage on
each separate situation has been informative, I can’t help but see the
entertainment value in the discussion panels being put together by the major
news networks and how the coverage, though informative, only showing the best
of each heated arguments on each side of the controversy.
Article 1:
Digital
Rights Management software, and its ability to remotely access people’s
personal devices and delete, without permission, files that don’t show the
proper security signature, regardless of where and how those files were
purchased. According to Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZD NET, Amazon
reportedly accessed thousands of readers’ Kindle machines and deleted books
without the user’s permission.
This, I am truly amazed by; strictly because the music and
entertainment industries have been adapting and evolving for years trying to
expand their abilities to reach consumers with their products and artist’s
intellectual property, but more importantly reduce the cost of production on
each unit in order to compensate for the rising low price demand throughout the
U.S. Now that digital rights have the ability to sell a user an unlock key for
a product, be it: music, media, software, or digital text, the consumers are
getting more than they bargain for when they realize that instead of buying and
owning a physical copy of a book, they are now
only getting limited rights to that digital copy and if other selections
weren’t purchased through one particular method, that same limited copyright
license that was legitimately paid for now has the ability to delete anything
it sees fit.
Article 2:
Unless the reader has been living under a rock, or in a
cabin in the woods over the past several weeks, they’ve seen panel after panel of
experts debating on the positives and negatives of the ObamaCare
campaign and court ruling. The synapsis of this controversial issue is
based around the want and need to extend healthcare insurance to the uninsured
and lay the groundwork for systemic reforms. Many people are strongly for this,
and many people are equally against it.
I can absolutely see why this is such a controversial
subject, people that have insurance and have been working hard all of their
lives to be able to afford great coverage for themselves and their loved ones
don’t think that it’s fair to give equal coverage to those whom can’t afford
the same coverage, or those who’ve never had a job with health benefits. The republican
argument to this situation is based around additional taxes and the feeling
of having to pay additional money to the government, unwillingly, in order to
provide coverage for people uninsured, over and above what they are already
paying for their own policies. One of the more entertaining interviews I’ve
seen regarding ObamaCare was called “Obama
lies, freedom dies” with Sarah Palin.
I can also absolutely see the benefits of health insurance
for those whom aren’t in, nor have ever been, in a situation to where they
could afford good health coverage. There are many positive outcomes that can
happen from having this type of court decision, thought there will still be a
small percentage that aren’t insured the numbers will drop drastically. Many of
the people that were previously denied coverage by insurance companies will now
have the opportunity for good healthcare, and even aspects of Medicare that
were virtually abolished under Republican budgeting will see many signs of new
life. Perhaps one
of the better articles I read about this court decision was from The Bangor
Daily News, showing their consumers the positives and potential future
outcomes from the court’s decision.
Article 3
The
Arizona Immigration Law controversy was another one of the frontrunners
from my research over the past week. This particular story has been ongoing for
quite some time, however, the most recent decision to uphold one of the four
contested provisions of the Arizona Law that, some would say, permits law
enforcement officers to racially profile people that could be in the state
illegally. Many
other states are also trying to model some of their immigration laws after the
Arizona ruling, with only five states following currently.
One of the many issues that people are having with the
entire immigration law battle is giving law enforcement the power to racially
profile someone. There are many Hispanic people throughout the country legally
and this type of law will open the doors to what some people perceive as
harassment. Many reporters, such as Alicia Caldwell, of the Associated Press,
believe that levying penalties on business owners that employ illegals will
help to retain a large portion of the job market within the U.S.
One of the better coverage videos I’ve seen on this
legislation was from Huffpost.
It gives better detail to several of the laws that were considered but not
passed, and gives better detail to the entire outlook of the situation. One of
the most interesting facts I’ve seen regarding this story, according to Michael
Martinez and Mariano Castillo, of CNN, was the amount of additional phone calls
per yea, totaling 50,000, that the Tuscan Police Department will now have to
make.
Conclusion:
Each of the articles I’ve read and researched this week all
have valid messages and are reporting the facts revolving around each case.
Though every source I’ve seen for these reports are basically broadcasting the
same information, just like the rest of the masses in this “on demand”
generation, I found myself drawn more to the discussion panels, industry
debates, and high-profile political opinions.
At one point, I forgot I was actually watching a discussion that
directly affects my personal taxes and ability to be seen by a medical
professional. Even though I was well informed about all three of the
controversies I felt as if I were just watching an episode of some reality
television show that I hadn’t seen before, and during my research on the other
articles, I found myself looking for something more entertaining to watch
and/or read about the other two articles to include in this blog.
I feel that appealing to the masses, while delivering a
powerful message is important, but what I personally would like to see is a
better grasp of current events and how those same masses that are being broadcast
to can make a substantial difference. There is more to news, law, and television
media than just watching it happen and hearing about the results of what others
are fighting for constitutionally.
No comments:
Post a Comment