The Social learning theory vs. media

The social learning theory in chapter 13 states that some people imitate what they see on TV or in any media through process called observational learning. I believe this to be very true and there are many cases that this has actually occurred. For instance, a while ago there were two people in Louisiana that murdered people and got caught. They tried to get away with it by saying that the movie Natural Born Killers made them do it. In other words they watched the movie and thought it was a cool thing to do so they imitated them. Although this is just one extreme case, it is still evident in other less obvious ways.
This theory is one of the main reason people are trying to put bans on violent video games. Even though there is no recorded cases of someone blaming a video game for a murder but there are records of kids becoming more violent in school because of certain video games. In fact just recently a kid in England ran away from home because his father took away his xbox. He mentioned that the child had been a lot more violent and ill tempered after playing Call of Duty 4 and tried to blame Microsoft. Now Microsoft put out a 50,000 dollar reward to whomever finds this kid. Not only does this display the theory but it also shows that even the manufacturers of these products know what is going on as well.

O'Reilly Vs. Olbermann

Upon viewing both of these programs, I notice a few differences between the two that made me lean more towards one show rather than the other. The tones of the two broadcasters was the first thing that i noticed. O'Reilly was very calm and collected while still showing his emotions in his voice. Olbermann on the other hand was just screaming the entire time. It was more like he was talking at you rather than to you. It was kind of aggravating and made me want to change the channel. O'Reilly on the other hand, even though you could tell his view on the issues, he didn't come across as threatening and even if you didn't agree with him it made his show easier to watch.
Both of the shows had clear cut methods of getting their points across. O'Reilly kept cutting off his interviews when he didn't like the way it was going. Even though this is kind of rude, after a while you could appreciate the method he was using to kind of subtly get his point across. On the other hand Olbermann would not stop yelling and he was moving from issue to issue with out a break. Even as annoying as it was you could see how affective it was because as a viewer it was harder to keep up with him. Without little breaks in the program you don't have time to form your own opinion and just have to accept his.
Even though I could probably never watch either of these shows again, it is interesting to see how the media can be so biased. The shows solely expressed the views of the news station and nothing else. It is good that there can be a balance between news stations though. If we only had one of these programs and not the other then there would be alot more confusion.

NPR on the Presidential debate

After digesting all of the topics and information during this debate I feel like it was defiantly one sided throughout the most of it. Senator Obama was very well prepared and very well versed. Not to get me wrong, just for a little backround, I am on the right, however I feel like Senator Mccain didn't bring his "A" game. While listening to NPR, my notion of Mccain was in fact agreed upon, although they decided that the debate was a draw. For the most part Mccain was not talking about his plans or actions as president, but instead he was poking at his opponents. I feel like i learned more of what Obama plans to do as acting president and also he defended himself quite well.
On the analysis given by NPR by Mara Liasson, the corespondent, she states that Mccain laid it on thick about how he has agreed to get together with the democrats to discuss a solution to the economic problem, a.k.a the bipartisan, and she feels that it helped his case. Of course because this crisis has devastated him in the vote. On the contrary I believe that it made him show a sign of weakness because its shows that he needs help. Senator Obama didn't dwell on this subject at all.
NPR also says that both of the parties did not give any new material during this debate but instead dwelled on old ideas and would not get passed them. I feel like this is an accurate statement but only to an extent. It is true that both of them only wanted to talk about the financial crisis and even when repeatedly asked to explain other ways that spending could be cut they responded with the same things over and over. The one way that NPR was wrong is that Obama gave new details on not only his plan for tax cuts but also Mccains plans. Not only were figures thrown about but quite large and astonishing numbers were discussed.
If I were to judge from my "experiences" (watching the debate), I would give Mara Liasson and NPR an 8.5 on the accuracy and unbiased view of their coverage on the debate.

Television broadcasts of 9/11 anniversary

This morning as i tuned into the Fox network expecting to see the usual Greg Kelly and his team of associates give me the daily news on Good Day New York, but instead I got the live coverage of the 9/11 anniversary services. This coverage was unlike a lot of others stories that the team covers in the way that their opinions and views on the events we rent given in a narrative style. Instead they let the ceremony speak for itself. It is quite amazing about how seven years later there is still such emotion and authenticity that is put into the ceremony itself.
Not only was Fox five covering the story this way but also a lot of other stations were as well. With something like 9/11 that has this kind of magnitude towards everyone in America, the media doesn't have to put their own twist on the events, and even if they did the public would know. This kind of thing just has to be broad casted live without any influential narration that goes along with it.
I'm sure half, if not more, of the country was tuned in to some form of media today listening and or watching the services at ground zero. This lets the media companies show no reason to put their own spin on the story since they already have the viewers. It is a nice change of pace once in a while to watch something and form your own opinions on the subject matter.

Changing Views

The ipod has fundamentally changed the way that I view the media through music. There are many mediums that music comes through, including the radio, satellite, Cd's, and cassettes. The ipod has revolutionized the way that most people buy and listen to their music. Instead of tuning in to a radio station or going to a department store to purchase a CD, they are either spinning the wheel on their ipod or logging on to itunes and buying a song.
With the eradication of the radio, the news and information that was broad casted alongside the music is no longer getting through to the public. This is a very useful tool that is being wasted. In the midst of a rock play list the DJ always interjected some tidbit of world news that some people wouldn't otherwise have heard if it wasn't for that. Even though there still are radios in almost every car it doesn't stray from the fact that there are almost an ipod in every car as well.
The first thing that I do when i get in my car is turn my ipod to shuffle and turn the volume all the way up. When i bought my car radio it wasn't for the radio it was for the ipod hook up that it had. Not only is the ipod affecting what I listen to but it is also affecting what I buy and how I shop. The ipod did affect alot of things in my life that i didn't even realize.