Young children watch 8,000 murdersand 100,000acts of violencebefore leaving elementary school. - Is violence in America influenced by some television?

Maggie McDonald

Dr. Tom Proietti

COMM 105 – 01

April 23, 2001

FINAL PROJECT

Question #1:

Young children watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence before leaving elementary school. - . Is violence in America influenced by some television? Before this course, I would have been likely to have said yes. Now I think that I have to rethink all of what I thought before. One the one hand, a lot of statistics show that there is a lot of violence on television, but at the same time, if some of that is not shown, then that would be censorship (now I know that I am against that!)

Does the media really glamorize violence and cause society to be more violent? According to Michael Massing from the book Violence in the Media through movies such as “Pulp Fiction” and “L.A. Confidential” violence has been made the way to solve problems quickly and easily. A family in West Paducha, Kentucky also feels that violence in our society has been contributed to by the media and more specifically movies. They have an declared a law suit against the person behind the shooting claiming that it was encouraged by the movie “The Basketball Diaries”. Do these families have any real proof that this movie or video games had any influence on the perpetrator to do this act of violence?

If there really is a problem with violence in the media that is causing children to be overly violent, how should it be solved? Joan E. Bertin feels that the problem of media violence does not justify censorship. As an Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship she feels that everything goes back to the First Amendment. The First protects violent speech and this is true even where minors are concerned. The human race has always been violent. Video games, television shows, and movies have not made us violent overnight. As Joan E. Bertin said, “- Think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and other institutionalized forms of torture and violence” (Violence in the Media p. 41). Does this mean that we should not show any of these historic events on television or talk about them in school for fear that some child is going to try and imitate Hitler?

Before this course, I was the first to say that violence on television was the cause of violence in America. Now I am uncertain of why there is violence in America and what can be done about it. I no longer believe that censorship is the answer to anything, because censorship is what corrupts, not the materials that are censored.

Question #2:

Christine Conlon the creator and designer of found some great examples of how minorities are under-represented as well and misrepresented in the media. A number of studies have confirmed how representations of minorities are not only limited in typical media, but tremendously prejudiced. An example that most probably would not think about (at least I did not until I read it) is the representation of Australians. It is shown in the media that Australians have a general lack of sensitivity and understanding and are usually depicted as violent, criminal, riotous, troublesome and a threat to the “normal” white society.

Five things that I would recommend to the media programmers, advertisers, and journalists would be to:

This is a preview of the whole essay

Five things that I would recommend to the media programmers, advertisers, and journalists would be to:

One thing that I might try would be to have a survey sent out to different people trying to figure out how they perceive certain minorities and why they think of them that way. If they thought prejudice towards a certain minority because that is what they see on television or in the media in general, then I would…try to work different aspects of those minorities in the media and see if I could help achieve the perfect world where there is no racism and where everyone gets along perfectly! Doing this might be a little harder. Go with the non-traditionalist approach. Have a role reversal from everyday television and go with exactly that. Just use more people in the shows and in the studios. Would that not be the simplest answer? If so, then why is it so hard for us to achieve that?

Question #3:

The media concentration of ownership refers to the few companies that have a lot of power in the media. (Almost like an oligopoly.) The four major trends in media concentration of ownership are newspaper chains, television networks, vertical integration, and corporate conglomeration.

The largest newspaper chain is the Gannett Co. Inc. It has daily newspapers and TV stations in Guam, the United Kingdom, and all except for 8 states in the United States. It locally owns the Democrat and Chronicle and WGRZ-TV Buffalo (Okay, so that is locally for me!) The major television networks at ABC (which is owned by Disney) NBC (which is owned by General Electric), and CBS (which is owned by Viacom). Vertical integration concentrates ownership by acquiring companies that are in related businesses, such as program production and distribution. An example of this is AOL acquiring Netscape. Corporate conglomeration is the merging of two large companies into one even larger company. A great example that has happened recently is the AOL-Time Werner merge. Could this merge be causing a monopoly? I do not think so. I actually think that it is great and exciting to see such success in an industry that is actually quite new to the world.

The advantages of media concentration are that big chains that work hard and do things right get a chance to make a lot of money. Perhaps in some cases, it may even be cheaper for people like us to use their sources and materials because they are a larger chain and it may allow them to keep their prices down in the long run. Disadvantages of course is the fact that it really eliminates a lot of competition in the market and does not allow for new companies or chains to have a chance in the particular market.

Concentration of ownership is closely related to Rochester because the Gannett Co. Inc. originally began here. Even though it did move to Virginia, they still kept the best-known paper (to Rochestarians) the Democrat and Chronicle.

Question #4:

Libel is a harmful and untruthful criticism by media that intends to damage someone (Media Now).

Privilege is a defense that is often used in libel cases. There are two types of privilege – there is absolute and qualified. Absolute refers to what can be said during judicial, legislative, and other public or official proceedings. IE – Legislators are allowed to say whatever they choose to say on a legislator’s floor, no matter how damaging it may be. The press does not have absolute privilege. They have what is called qualified privilege. Qualified privilege is based on the accuracy of reports. ()

Fair Comment is a defense that is also used to defend people from Libel. This is reserved for those people who are comedians and critiques. Unless malice of forethought can be proved or reckless disregard for the truth is used then they cannot be charged with a libel offense.

Court Case Number One -

This case reaffirmed that a person has the right to state his or her own opinion freely without the fear of legal action. On April 16, 1996, Oprah Winfrey’s show topic was “Dangerous Foods”. It focused on many different topics, but the one that caught the attention of the Texas Cattlemen was the particular piece on the risks of Mad Cow Disease in America. Howard Lymans, a vegetarian activist, said it was possible to become infected with the disease, because cattlemen regularly feed ground animal parts to cattle. Winfrey, upon hearing this, stated the information "Stopped (her) cold from eating another burger."

Beef prices fell after the airing of the April 16th show and did not rise again for two weeks. Texas rancher Paul Engler was unhappy with the statements made and the results that followed. He felt that the statement was "incorrect" and "negative." He claimed to have lost seven million dollars after the show aired. Engler and several other cattlemen claimed a combined loss of more than $12 million under the Texas law that holds people liable for falsely criticizing food products.

On February 26, 1998, almost two months after the trial began; the jury decided the case in favor of Oprah Winfrey. Winfrey stated after the trial that, "FREE SPEECH NOT ONLY LIVES, IT ROCKS!" The Texas Cattlemen's Association is appealing the verdict. ()

Court Case Number Two – Richard Jewell vs. NBC

This case concerned a private citizen and a national broadcasting network that allowed Richard Jewell’s name to be released by the press as the FBI's main suspect in the bombing at the 1996 Olympic Goodwill Games in Atlanta, Georgia. Although he had not been formally charged and there are laws prohibiting the release of suspects' names before they are charged. Tom Brokaw on the NBC Nightly News said that, “The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well.” NBC later agreed to a reported settlement of $500,000 in December 1997. ()

Court Case Number Three – Curtis Publishing vs. Butts (1967)

A diversity libel action was brought to a federal court seeking compensatory and punitive damages for an article that was published in a magazine accusing a football coach of conspiring to "fix" a football game between the University of Alabama and the University of Georgia, where he was the athletic director. The case came about after a telephone conversation between respondent and the Alabama coach had been accidentally overheard. The jury returned a verdict of general and punitive damages that was reduced.

I do not think that there could be any changes made to the Libel Laws so that it would not be a threat to freedom of speech. I think that some people are maybe just more sensitive to things that are said than others. People are always going to be looking for a way to get a chance at more money. I think that it is really quite sad that people, especially public figures, have to think twice about what they say and if it could harm them in the long run. People should be able to say what they want and when they want, after all is that not what the First Amendment is all about?

Question #5:

Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, a composer, a playwright, a publisher, or a distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work (). The concept is to ensure that those who create pieces of work get the rights to those pieces and that others do not steal or reproduce with out the author’s consent.

What can be copyrighted?

Literary works;
Musical works, including any accompanying words
Dramatic works, including any accompanying music
Pantomimes and choreographic works
Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
Motion pictures and other audiovisual works
Sound recordings
Architectural works

How long copyright protection endures (this stuff gets confusing!):

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978 - automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. If it happens to be a joint work then it is 70 years after the last surviving author’s death.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date - These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978 - copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. ()

MP3 technology and Napster have been a huge rising debate over the past year or two. Record Companies and artists, such as Metallica, feel that the sharing of files over the Internet is a violation of their copyright and that they are losing money from it.

I can see where the artists and companies may be a little mad. Maybe they are losing a huge profit, but at the same time, maybe it would have increased their profits at the same time. People were sharing the MP3 files for their personal use, but obviously courts have ruled otherwise in this case.

For those of us who just wanted our Napster and not pay a fee for the copyright law. Well, who does not like to get stuff for free? It was just so much easier to sit down at the computer at your own convenience and download a song that was in your head instead of going to a store and paying twelve to twenty dollars for a CD where you did not even want eleven of the twelve tracks that are on it.