This definition of “media logic” as defined by Cornelissen
stood out to me in our reading for this week: media logic is “an ideological
frame of reference of a news organization which influences how editors and
journalists see, interpret, and cover political, corporate, and social affairs.
A logic in other words underpins media coverage including how material is
organized, the style in which it is presented, the focus or emphasis and the
grammar and wording of an article.”
I wonder about the ideological framework for, say, Fox news,
which does not allow newcasters to report on issues like global climate change
or allow any one on a show who wants to talk about it. If they do set the
agenda, as Cornelissen suggests, then what kind of agenda is that? I’m sure it
has to do with Fox’s financial interests and partnerships. And what kind of agenda are they setting. Of course, Fox is the only news station to shape the news for to their own benefits, but it's the first one that comes to mind for me.
I also think about
Fox as I listen to republican candidates talk (for as long as I can stand it
anyway). With all the attention the media is paying to Trump, I’m wondering if
they really want to elect him or if he is just the day’s entertainment. They’re
not covering Bernie, I suspect, because he’s not as entertaining (in that
buffoon way). Writing the news used to be all about objective reporting (at
least as objective as we could make it). Now it’s all about entertainment. I
wonder about the reporters who work for Fox, or stations like it. They had to
get journalism degrees like any other reporter. Or maybe they don’t have to
have credentials to work for Fox. Actually, I wonder about any communicators at
Fox. Are they all believers?
I watch PBS Newshour. What reputation does that station have? Do they pander to what's entertaining. What I like about them is that they give people enough time to talk to finish their thought. They don't cut them off. You get the whole story with them.
Journalism gatekeeping studies illuminate editorial decisions to omit some issues, “agenda-setting” studies enhance audience salience for selected issues, and “diffusion” studies underscore uneven flows of new information to different audiences (Pollock, 2008). In agenda setting scholars suggest the direction may change, from orientation of what media tell people to think about, to what people tell media to think about. In cultivation theory, they indicate rather than one dominant worldview perpetuated through many media, theory could shift to individuals cultivated through selective exposure and the media that aligns with their worldview. In critical studies they discuss that with focus on audience reception, there could be many application. Some shifting may move toward how and why users create messages might be a new focus.
ReplyDeleteTelevision journalism is, in my opinion, more about the entertainment factor than it is about telling the people the stories they legitimately need to know. I am always floored when I see how stories are picked up by one network, like CNN, but are totally ignored by others, like Fox. It seems like the networks know who their audience - their stakeholders - are, and primarily produce stories to interest and entertain them. This practice, while profitable, is dangerous. I wonder about the gaps in people's knowledge about current events if they strictly consume news from one source.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete