Sensationalism is playing up a story in order to attract more people to it. The story could be very important or not important at all.
Sensationalism does cause harm. It hurts the credibility of the media source and can also be harmful to the public.
It is sad when a media outlet leans on a story because of shock value and star power. That's what happens with the pressure to have something on the air 24/7 or to get people to watch the local news instead of Friends reruns. I think it is odd that everyone looks on sensationalism as negative but the media still does it. It would be interesting to see what the general public would say about sensationalism or if they have ever even thought about it. I would say the fact that we are students of broadcast media makes us more aware of what is really going on in the media.
Sensationalism has a negative impact on society. It detracts from the value of issues that could actually impact our lives. It also shines the spotlight on negatives and can even make negative things seem glamorous. In another class we talked about a series the New York World did on the Ku Klux Klan. The World's objective was to take on the Klan and expose all of their wrong doings. In the end, the World played a huge role in taking down the Klan but there were problems. The series was definitely sensationalized. There were full page ads blaring the coming of the articles. The series ran for three weeks straight with huge amounts of readers. With all this success there was a downside. Membership in the Klan actually grew. The World was essentially giving the Klan free advertising. People who had never even heard of the Klan became members. Luckily, the Klan did decline in the end thanks to the World and other newspapers. Like I said earlier sensationalism sometimes has the glamorizing effect on bad things.

News Sensationalism

To start off with, I do believe that sensationalism of our news does hurt the credibility of stories. Come on writers, if you can't come up with an interesting lead to your story so you pump up the hell out of it to make it worth reading, was the story really worth writing in the first place? My definition of news sensationalism is simply this: journalists hyping a story that doesn't need to be hyped. Like I just stated previously, if you can't find a credible news story, or one that doesn't deserve to be in your paper, don't write it. Find something worth covering. Some great examples in current news: there is the obvious Anna Nicole Smith thing going on which is ridiculous. I'm sick of hearing about it. A sports example: the steroids issue in baseball and the linking of all the big name players. Not that I don't acknowledge the fact that they did use them but damn, how much longer must this go on?!!! Whatever happened to good reporting when the stories told themselves and it wasn't the journalists building up to something that belongs in a freaking tabloid?!!!!

YES!

Yes news sensationalism absolutely does hurt news credibility.

For me it makes me feel as if they don't think the story has legs to stand on it's own. So they have to sensationalize it and make it seem sexier than it actually is. Well if they don't think the story is good enough to stand behind and stand on it's own then how good is it? It makes me as a viewer think I'm watching something that the journalist can't even get behind.

And in a lot of cases it isn't warranted and makes mundane stories that shouldn't matter, like Terrell Owens sitting out of practice, into something totally huge. It's like they turn a molehill into a mountain! I can't stand it and it really needs to end.

News sensationalism I think is anytime they take a story and just completely overblow it or enhance one small part of the story that's not even important and try to turn it into something bigger than it is. It happens all the time.

Celeb Blogs

Even though I have to admit I do look at celebrity news blogs and read celeb related magazines, the information in these shouldn't be treated as real news. I don't like when "real" news outlets report celeb news right alongside relevant news. I do think it's OK when it is done on a specifically entertainment related show or even segment. But then again you come to the point where there is a line between entertainment news and celeb gossip. There is a difference between who is nominated for an Oscar and who was at the this weeks hottest night club. Even still there is definitely a huge demand for gossip. I think people are drawn to seeing celebrities out in the real world, sometimes doing things everyday people do. I guess what it comes down to is what is news to one person might not me news to another. News is supposed to be relevant. But I guess when it really comes down to it what is relevant to you is your own decision. Do I leave it up to journalists to decide what is relevant in my life?
Someone below mentioned citing blogs as sources. This is done all the time in the celeb gossip world. I have even seen "real" news outlets citing perezhilton.com or tmz.com as sources. I'm not saying this is right. It just happens all the time.

Celebrity Gossip

Why are we even talking about this in a class called issues in broadcasting. If anyone in their right mind thinks that blogs about celebrities qualifies as news than they do not even know what news is. News is supposed to be relevant and timely. Although celebrity news may be timely it does not qualify as relevant. Then considering we are talking about blogs, I am very disturbed. Blogs although may hold some relevant information, are not a source of news. If a person involved in reporting the news tried to use a blog as a source, the editor or producer would not allow it. Blogs are a new way of distributing information but until they are regulated by a trustable person, I personally will never believe anything I read on them. Blogs are fine for gossip but when it comes to real news then leave it up to real journalists.

Celebrity Gossip Blogs

These things are ridiculous. They do not even need to be mentioned in the same breath as what actually qualifies as news. News is something that should be important to our lives. Who cares who some celebrity is sleeping with or if they got arrested for some reason unknown to us. They should have private lives just like the rest of us. They're no different from any other person on the planet. They just make more money and we see them in the media all the time. Most of the time, like these celebrity gossip blogs, is for the wrong reasons. People, just realize that even if these celebrities actually had private lives and not have every thought recorded in a blog, life will go on. When you see celebrities being portrayed on so-called "reliable" news networks and calling these things news stories, it's absolutely ludicrous. I think the perfect example is the whole Anna Nicole Smith thing. I mean good lord, drop it already. She's gone and she isn't coming back. Quit talking about it!!!!!

Heck no.

Celebrity gossip blogs do not meet my definition of news.
I think there is a horrible obsession in this country with celebritys. I don't care what they're doing in their personal lives! They're people just like you and me! They put their pants on the same way we do! Who cares who they're sleeping with or what they're doing in their personal life?
I think this country needs to stop it's obsession with the hollywood celebrity and quit putting them on a plateau above everyone else.
Unfortunately celebrity gossip blogs do just this. But it's not news. What they do does not affect my life in any way shape or form. Most news affects someone's life somewhere. But what happens to a celebrity really only affects them.
These sites are not reputable. They're akin to a high school gossip session. It reminds me of a bunch of girls in high school passing rumors around.

Advertising in Sports

Overall I do not think that advertising in sports is a bad thing but there are a few exceptions to that. The first being exactly what Brains quote is, Baseball is trying to sell every available space to advertisers and it is ruining the game. For instances Wrigley Field which is the oldest stadium in baseball just sold the rights to Under Armor to advertise on the outfield wall. As a purest that really upset me. My next biggest complaint about advertising in sports is when companies by the nameing rights to stadiums or arenas. I do not mind this as much in professional sports but it is becoming a problem in college sports. It seems to me that sports are becoming all about the money from the teams to the players and the only way to keep both of them happy is to sell more ads. Unfortunately if this trend continues I am afraid that one day you will the see the advertising become bigger than the game itself.

Advertising in Sports

Advertising is sort of a necessary evil. Honestly, I think advertising in many ways can be a good thing. It is really what allows us to watch sports so I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has destroyed sports. If it weren't for ads then you wouldn't ever get to see games on TV. I think what is really the problem in sports is the huge salaries. This is what creates the primadonnas and creates media frenzies about a player maybe even before the enter the pros. As far as excess, there is some advertising that seems like a waste of money. Does Bud really need another commercial to sell beer? Does Coke need another ad to sell coke? But I guess they can afford to do to it.

Advertising in Sports

I honestly don't think that advertising during a sporting event is such a bad thing. That station, radio or television, has got to pay their bills somehow. That somehow is by selling ads. Without them the people who work on that station aren't going to get a paycheck and without them, you're not going to get to watch or listen to your favorite team. Advertisements are what keep this business afloat. Now some would say that there are too many ads during games because it seems as if they're always taking a commercial break. There is some truth to that statement. Baseball games for instance are 9 innings, a top half and a bottom half. Stations take breaks between each of those halves and at the end of each as well. Not to mention when a pitching change comes up. To me that's too many breaks. Stay with the game for a couple innings, give us a little extra info on what's going on in the game instead of showing the same bud light commercial for the nineteenth time. Now media coverage of certain teams, that's where most people get angry with sports journalists. With baseball it's the Yankees, basketball it's the Mavericks and the Heat and Lebron, football it's the cowboys, and on and on blah blah blah. Let's have some variety people. Show us the other teams and athletes. When you keep talking about the same damn players all the time like Lebron, D-Wade, Ladainian, A-Rod, and Jeter; yeah this crap gets old. Again variety is key if you want to keep the masses interested. Closing with the advertising of sports though, it's not that big of a deal. Cause without it, we'll have a big deal on our hands, sports on television and radio will cease to exist.

ESPN is what destroys sport.

Sports media and sports advertising has done a lot to destroy sports but the biggest contributor is the sports media giant ESPN.
Because of ESPN we have gotten the highlight reel.
Now players are concerned with only making the highlight reel. It's created a generation of athletes that only care about showboating and dancing so they can make the Top 10.
Then you've got all these sportscenter anchors who are nothing more than 40 year old white guys trying to sound hip and cool. They don't sound hip and cool and unfortuantely they teach young aspiring journalists that this is the way to write and sound. Sports articles in the newspaper and on television shows has been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of cliches.
Plus the way they run coverage of certain things into the ground, just like other mediak creates a problem when you have athletes like Terrell Owens. ESPN gives him so much coverage that he knows all he has to do is something very small and he'll get play on ESPN for 2 weeks.
Then you've got the fact that ESPN only covers their favorites. Barry Bonds, ARod, the Yankess, TO, Reggie Bush, the Cowboys, the Giants, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, the Lakers, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, etc. Many young fans of sports or casual fans think this is all their is out there. They think that's the cream of the crop when it's not true.
It doesn't help that ESPN flat out makes things up about these players or teams. One anchor called Reggie Bush the most dynamic offensive player in the NFL. This was at a time when he had like 3 total TDS and less than 300 rushing yards, while LT was running, throwing, and receiving touchdowns on a regular basis.

Advertising and media coverage has done a lot to damage sports but ESPN has been at the forefront of crappy decisions and styles that harm sports.

I think in the past gatekeeping has been a function of time and space. Taking into consideration the internet, like the discussion question asked, this is going to change. The internet, for now at least, is wide open to most people. I would argue that most people who keep up with current events use the internet to get information in some way. It is very possible that the gatekeepers of the future will be on the internet. Take the Drudge Report. This is basically a collection of headlines that will take you to the actual story. Millions of people use this page as a starting point for their internet consumption. Matt Drudge has become a gatekeeper to the internet. Basically any blog just lays out the the author thinks is important for you to take a look at for yourself. This could range from politics, to videogames, music, to celebrity gossip. If you think about how big and vast the internet can be you kind of need something like this. So if the internet is the future of news then blogs like this will be the gatekeepers.

Gatekeepers

Who is a gatekeeper? Am i a gatekeeper? Are you a gatekeeper? Gatekeepers are people who decide what people should read or see as news. Given the internet than you and I are both gatekeepers, but on radio and television who are those gatekeepers. Lawyers, that's who are television gatekeepers. They decide what should be news because they say if they story might have legal ramifications.

Although if you think about it everyone involved in the news process is a gatekeeper. They reporter or editor/producer decides what story is news and if it is worth covering. From there somone covers the story and decides what they feel is news worthy. Then they try and pass it on the the public who has no say what they cover as news.

The gatekeepers of tomorrow are probably going to be the public because of the internet. People want information quickly and the internet is the best way. The internet also allows people to choose what they want to read instead of being force feed news, like television does.

Like Kelley and Gabby's quote says, "What you get is what you got because when they own the information they can bend it all they want” – John Mayer

Gatekeeping

I'm going to have to agree with JR on this one. I believe that in the future the gatekeepers of the media will be the main population. Why not? So much news nowadays is being put on the Internet before it even reaches print or broadcast. You can't have a gatekeeper for all of these news organizations that you see online. I'm sure that these organizations have editors and human resource people that try to limit what goes up and what doesn't but it's going to be hard for every single one of those organizations to do so. One problem that some of these organizations would face would be to staff people to do that job. They're not going to want to pay someone just to decide what stories go up on someones blog. They've got bigger fish to fry. Also, gatekeeping can be kind of ridiculous if you look at it. Somebody decides what news stories I'm going to read. That's BS! I'll decide what news stories I want to read. I don't need you to bias the already biased news circuit by putting the stories you want me to read on the internet. If you're going to do that, that's totally fine with me. You just lost readership. When you start losing money to fund your stupid little news organization with your fancy gatekeeper, maybe you'll think twice won't you.

Media Gatekeepers of the future.

I think the media gatekeepers of the future will be the people.
With the prevalence of the internet and blogs you don't have the process of an editor looking something over. For a lot of things you don't have big HR departments to handle everything.
You still have that in other forms of media but when it comes to the internet and personal news sites you lose that.
However that doesn't mean that they're going to go crazy and write about whatever they want. I think it's quite the opposite.
The people will keep these in line and make sure they don't go reporting anything that isn't true.
The people will read these blogs and check the facts(hopefully) and see if they're being told the truth or being fed a line of crap.
And if they are constantly being fed crap then they will respond to the person writing this blog or just stop reading all together. When they notice an overwhelming negative response or a loss of readership then they will be forced to change their practice.

Fairness Doctrine

In my eyes after reading the articles associated with the Fairness Doctrine, I say have it reinstated. It seems that all it would do is make the news media markets more moderate if anything. Without it, most news markets are going to continue to be of the conservative type. It would be nice to see some balance in the news today. Reinstating the doctrine wouldn't push anyone or anything towards liberal views in today's society. It would attempt to balance out what needs to be balanced out. Trying to watch the same thing day in and day out is starting to get old, and quick. Every show you turn on, whether it be on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC; the consensus of these shows are conservative hard-liners. Some of these hosts on their respective channels try to report from both sides of the fence but they don't do a very good job at it. So with that being said, what's the big deal about the fairness doctrine? It might do the country some good to see a news story with a different perspective for a change.

Fairness Doctrine

Is the fairness doctrine out of date. I believe the answer to that question is simple; yes it is very out of date.

In today’s society when you have a variety of viewpoints every where you look and from everything you hear, it is hard to believe that you can’t find someone who you agree with. For the government to believe that they need to step in and mandate what people are watching and listening to is completely absurd. Just because you disagree with what someone says does not mean that it is wrong, and if you believe that then you are in for a rude awakening later on in life.

We live in a society that is based on free expression; people are allowed to do and say almost anything they want as long as it does not physically harm another person. For someone to believe that what you are listening to controls how you think is just dumb. People watch television to help make them more informed on the issues.

In today’s age the Fairness Doctrine would just be idiotic. There are laws in place that already try and mandate what people can watch, in the form of must carry stations, and these stations suffer greatly because it is very hard to get a large amount of the population to watch them.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would only decrease the amount of different ideas people can hear, not increase them.

Media Watchdogs

Are all stories that are reported by the media completely true? No they are not completely true but there has to be some truth to what they are reporting if they fell it is worth reporting on. However this has been known to cause more than a few problems. Should the reporters be held responsible for what they report or should someone be assigned to watch over them and make sure what they are reporting is correct; I'm not sure either one is ever going to happen. The first ammendment guarentees the right to free speech and the right for free press. With such rules it seems that the only way the media will ever be held accountable is if their pockets suffer. For their pockets to suffer the general public must stand up and say they are not going to take such poor reporting. I do not feel this will ever happen either. Something must be done but I am not sure as to what the solution should really be. A liscense sounds like a good idea but does that not contradict the First Ammendment. I think it does.

Kind of conflicted!

I'm really kind of conflicted on the fairness doctrine.

On one hand I believe in free speech and free airwaves. I don't think there should be a law in place telling people what they have to put on their airwaves. We know that people have an agenda and we know that station owners have an agenda.
But the government is telling them they can't further that agenda because they have to give equal time to the viewpoint they disagree with.

I know that sounds bad but it is free trade and speech and all that good stuff.

Then on the other hand the first article we read makes a good point. Without the fairness doctrine there is nobody to balance out that conservative viewpoint on Foxnews or wherever.

But you know what? I'm still opposed to the fairness doctrine. I think it worked in an age where you only had 3-12 channels. These days there's such a wide dissemination of information and sources that it's really not feasible. You don't like what they're saying on Fox News(and you can bet i don't) then change the channel.
These days there's such a wide array of sources to get your news and opinions from on TV alone. The fairness doctrine really isn't feasible when the opposing viewpoint is a channel click away.

Media Accountability

I don't think that I would go so far as to say that the American media is falsifying stories. I would say that there are instances where journalists rely on bad information. They don't put the work into researching to see if their sources are correct. All they see is a blockbuster story that they want to get out as soon as possible. I also think there may be some journalists that leave out details that can create a false impression of what is really going on. I think someone said something below about sensationalism. I also think this is a problem. Often on the news there are stories that aren't really news. Rehashing old stories is not usually news and just because someone is holding a press conference doesn't mean what they are saying is true. So I guess you might be able to call that falsifying in a way.
Licensing should not be out of the question. It would add a greater amount of accountability. On one hand, it could greatly improve the media because journalists would be forced to make sure that their stories are true. If they not they could risk losing their license. On the other hand, it might make some journalists afraid to go all out or break stories. Although, I guess if there is any doubt it shouldn't be broken anyways.

Tony and Caleb's reading.

I don't think the problem of the media making up stories is as bad as most people think it is.
I think it occurs yes. But I do not think it occurs at a high frequency.
The biggest problem isn't making up news but sensationalizing it. The media tends to find a way to overblow one aspect of a story and then run it into the ground.
It happens everywhere even in sports media.
Take Terrell Owens. Everytime he did something this season it was blown up and ran into the ground repeatedly.
Now the media isn't making these stories up but they're making them bigger than they have to be.
I think an ombudsmen or a watchdog is a good thing but I think they also need to be looking for sensationalization in addition to someone making up news stories.
I'm not sure on bloggers. The thing is they are generally writing an opinion column rather than a news piece. The line is blurred but if they feel they have any journalistic intergrity then they should stick to the truth. At least the thought of being sued will maybe keep them in line.

Overall I don't think it's that big of a problem. I think we still have responsible journalists out there. I know I'm one. I'm scared to death of being sued out of everything by screwing up.

Media Credibility

To answer the question as to whether making up stories in the American media market is true, then I say hell yes it's true. It's easy to find an example. Dan Rather is that example, a perfect one at that. The reports that he read on a national news program were found to be false. If he is reporting false news on a national news circuit, then what is going to make us believe that Joe Schmo up at some hole-in-the-wall news station isn't doing it too. The truth to the matter is that it is happening everywhere. Go watch a news story on TV tonight or any night and after hearing something that might not sound true to you, go research it on the Internet and find out if the story is true or not. If it turns out to be true, then big deal. But if it's false, you could expose that reporter that gave out the false information. Moving on to the next question. Should journalists be required to have licenses and can they be revoked if they are irresponsible in their work? I say why not? There are all sorts of other professionals out there that have to have licenses. Doctors and lawyers will sure get their licenses taken away for bad work. Why not journalists? If they are misinforming the masses then they shouldn't be working in the field. Going back to Dan Rather, the facts that he reported on live television turned out to be misleading. Hence, he doesn't have a job anymore. Same rules should apply to anyone!