Find a news story that you think shows significant spin or bias. Explain how and why it is biased. Put a link to the story in your blog.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=KTVB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This story was ran on June 3rd before Barrack Obama has clinched the Democrat nomination. The Associated Press claimed that based off of the Superdelegate counts he officially had won. When you visit other news source sites it was all over the main page that Associated Press claimed he had won but it wasn't official. This news story shows bias in several ways. The first thing I thought when I saw they ran this was that the Associated Press wanted to be the first to run the story. Not only this but also that others would read the story they ran and also run it. Similar to the whole election debate in 2000 when John Kerry and President George. W. Bush ran against each other. Many news sources claim FOX News ran the numbers too early and in turn that is why Bush is in office. I don't know if this claim is true or not but when a news source runs a story early it can vastly affect the outcome of a race or even something small. Free publicity is good publicity. Therefore why not run a great story that everyone will read and catch on to. If the Associated Press wanted Hilary Clinton to win the nomination they probably wouldn't have ran the story so quickly. They could have waited for the other news sources to catch on. There is so much bias in the world, news and our lives that the news basically runs and controls what the citizens know and see. When the news comes on they know how to grab our attention. "Huge hurricane tonight at midnight off the coast! up next!" When they say this it grabs our attention. When in reality the hurricane is off the coast of Florida where no one will feel the affects. The news is smart and rich. They will keep growing unless we don't trust them. I don't know if the Associated Press supports Barrack Obama or not but when a story is run so early it is hard to not think that way.

"Orwell rolls in his grave argues the media has too much power on public perception and is almost anti-democratic. Do you agree or disagree? Give spec

"Orwell rolls in his grave argues the media has too much power on public perception and is almost anti-democratic. Do you agree or disagree? Give specific examples.

In the video on how the media has power on public perception I saw that whether your republican or democrat your opinion on different news sources isn't very great. Everyone seems to feel like the media has a strong affect on what we believe. Whether your watching CNN or FOX news. As a free country American shouldnt have propoganda and bias towards one souce of news or another. There should be different opinions of course but when different news sources are funded by a specific group or person there is a key component that the source is trying to throw at us. Why is the media trying to change our opinions just frm the facts? The facts should be 100 percent true without a republican telling it in his or her view or visa versa. This is how our country's news media and media in general in anti-democratic. Our news shouldnt be about trying to sway your opinion by having 95 percent republican guests on the show or 95 percent democrats. It should be more equal. When the hews uses the fraze "we report, you decide" then let me decide. I' am not just talking about FOX news it is all news. News in general is flawed and brings out the worst in the best Democracy in the world. This makes our media anti-democratic when there is so much bias and opinion involved. Facts are facts and it should be reported with noones opinion except mine and yours being taken into affect.

From "Merchants of Cool": To what extent do you feel the documentary accurately portrays the effect of the media on teenagers. Give a specific example

In the "merchants of cool" video I realized how much the media actually has on the direction teenagers focus their passion, interests, and what they listen to and even wear everyday. When a company makes a decision to market a product their are many surveys in which they conduct to find out information on how well the new gadget or item will do in the public reaction to the new product. When they do this they ask people opinions and statistics. The media definitely has a grasp of what is going on in our minds and with children's minds. For example, when the apple ipod first was released the company made commercials of young "hip" people dancing and walking down the street, at parks and even at schools. The company made these computer generated animations and made hot colors of greens, pinks, and purples in an attempt to grab our attention. Well it obviously worked, the ipod it the most sold entertainment device sold in the world. Not only in America but other countries as well. So to answer the question for this blog entry I believe that the video did an alright job on portraying how the media has an affect on teenagers. Some of the examples set in the video were extreme or out of date but it is very true that the media goes know what we want and does a good job of getting the money they want from us in return.

Should the government have oversight of internet content? Is it needed? Is it possible? Why or why not?

Should the government have oversight of internet content? Is it needed? Is it possible? Why or why not?

In our government system we have as a democracy in which protects our privacy. The fourth amendment is protection. The fathers of our country knew what they were doing and set forth a very inportant amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. To sum this up it means we have the right to not have the government intervene into our personal buisness. If your on the phone the government technically isn't allowed to tap into our calls. But unfortunately like we talked about during our debates they do it anyway. So what gives the government to violate more of our fourth amendment rights and ready our online content? We have enough people watching us all day. People are on video dozens of time each day. In 2008 we are watched more then ever. We hve cameras taking pictures of our license plates and sending us tickets for God sakes! Why would we ever want them to butt into our private life more then they already do? To answer the question on if it is possible the answer is yes. Anything is basically possible for the government to do. They know the technology and the world more then we know. It wouldnt be right for the government to do this and in order for them to get the right to do this if they arent akready violating it. The United Sates Government would have to break the fourth amendment even more then they already have. If I broke the constitution I would be arrested but they can break the rules without beign arrested? This isn't right and should never be needed for the government to have internet oversight.

Do you think citizen journalism upholds or undermines American values? Why?

In journalism there are many aspects that a writer must learn before wrtiting. For example, in Journalism this year the whole first semester of this year we learned style guide and the different rules one must understand in order to follow rules in writing so there is no bias. Once you learn this you can begin writing. But you also learn along the way just like anything we learn. To have random people writing in the newspaper would be ike having someone making up information on the news channel. None would like that and it would cause bias, propoganda, and false information. In class we talked about how it would be tough having anyone writing whatever they wanted and published because there aren't solid sources just like on Wikipedia or blogs online. We read this information but it isn't always true. Everyone knows that just because we hear something on the television or in the newspaper sometimes it isn't the truth it still is taken as literal. The news isn't always true based on false information from a reliable source, people mixing their views into the article or story, or even people ignoring the truth and publishig something more interesting. If our trained writers and newscasters aren't always 100 percent right then how could untrained writers do any better? We should leave it to the people who have degrees in that field and stick to word of mouth and writing blogs.