Messages from the media come in all different forms depending on how they are broadcast. In some cases, like the news shown on Fox or ABC, the stories are accurate and very informational for the general public. On the other hand, some media shares messages to the public that have absolutely no base in fact and are used solely to create attention to a subject. The National Enquirer magazine has created a reputation around the fabricated material that they publish. Despite the fact that they are known for unreliable journalism, they have established a very large fan base for their work. As a matter of fact, the reason for their large following is because of the tabloids and gossip. Why is it that people enjoy buying this magazine revolving around the affairs and mug shots of popular celebrities? I cannot lie, unlike the Jersey Shore television program, I do enjoy purchasing a good tabloid magazine for some, shall I call it, "light" reading. However, Star or People have a higher standard for factual stories vs. National Enquirer is entirely exaggerated. It is extremely interesting how a magazine company can pride themselves on publishing gossip and readers can still take the messages from this magazine seriously. The fact that it is in print and a form of mass media, gives justification for the public to believe in the messages. Perhaps the National Enquirer’s message is more subtle than the obvious; it is so easy to believe anything that you hear, that a person might as well be reading falsified gossip. Either way, the public is captivated by exciting new stories, even when they know it’s exaggerated.
I agree that the general public can easily be duped by media. With such ease of access to technology, many websites such as urban dictionary are taken for fact, even though anyone can post on the webpage. However, this is not always true for the National Enquirer. Take for instance the story about John Edwards' mistress that was initially published by the National Enquirer. The National Enquirer got a tip on this topic in 2007, and it is only now that John Edwards is about to be indicted by a federal grand jury. Thus, the National Enquirer does from time to time provide accurate information on current events.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-national-enquirer-got-the-john-edwards-scandal-scoop-2010-3
From reading this post it seems to me that you are against such kind of media mdeium and easy to read content as you call it. I agree with you completely, and it makes me very mad to see that these magazines are making money because i am more of a wall street journal reader and i like bbc a lot compared us news because they are much less biased, but i still have friends who are signed up to about 5 different gossip magazines which are not cheap, and so i am left confused as to why people dedicate so much of their free time to reading such trash rather that reading something that could be usefull to their knowledge.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I agree with you that there is an issue with audiences believing what they are exposed to in Mass Media. This is especially important with the constant expansion of the internet. People, now more then ever, can write any gossip or lies and instantly make it available to large portions of the population, making the reader responsible for determining truth from lies.
ReplyDeleteI think this is very true. Americans only pay attention to media that interest them. If a factual story happens to be interesting, people pay attention to it and learn what really happen (take the Tiger Woods scandal for example). If something interesting is fabricated or distorted, people do not learn anything. And if they think the source is reliable when in reality it isn't, they might accept what they read or watch to be true without hesitation.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I like tabloids to know the "scoop" on celebs no matter how exaggerated it is. It's such good beach reading and gives you something to talk about when first meeting someone because celebs are such a world-known topic that everyone will know and have an opinion.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion about tabloid journalism. Although it has been argued that these years, even serious journalism has tendency to become tabloidized (e.g. USA Today, Fox News--the clip we saw in class about Obama's hand gestures). To make money, tabloids have to go with the low-brow appeal, but recently it has also been argued that this low-brow appeal has positive democratic values--as it inhances the political partiication of the less-educated masses. I wonder what you think about that point?
ReplyDeleteGood post overall.
d.