The Future

Technology is in the forefront of all news today and I do not anticipate that changing.  I see it becoming more and more prevalent.  Newspapers and magazines will become fewer and fewer while online journals and blogs will become even more popular than they are today. I saw an interesting article a while back referencing how Fox News has lost its credibility. I think that things like this are cyclical and will constantly be changing.  The leading news producers will flip flop who is on top and who is slipping behind.  A few things will not change, conglomerates will always be there.  I think that it could even become more apparent.  Less and less companies will own the majority of all news.  This is scary to think about.  We are already somewhat brainwashed from all the media that we see that is either biased or one sided.  Things could get worse.  I can think of something that could, and may, combat this.  User-generated content.  Blogs. I see blogs taking off in the future.  People want to know quick stories, written in a way that we can zoom through them.  Everything is moving in the quick direction.. no one sits down and reads the newspaper before they go to work.  They check their phone for updates or emails.  I see the media really going in this direction.  Quick blog updates sent to mobile devices that pinpoint the users interests and concerns and simply send the user what he or she wants to know and hear about.  “Mobile” will dominate.  Having all the information that you may want in the palm of your hand… that’s what our generation wants.

I could be completely wrong.. Media and technology are constantly changing and I really can’t predict what is going to happen.

I found this article about the future of digital media and found it to be really interesting. 

Will you accept this rose?

I have never been a fan of the Bachelor. The concept itself seems absolutely absurd to me.  I don’t understand how you may or may not be falling in love with multiple people at the same time.  But what would I know.  I do know that the show is outdated and has sad, sad misrepresentations of women, patriarchal values, sexism, and beauty. Here we have a group of 20 something women.  All young, beautiful, and completely ready to fight for a man.  Here we have a successful, good looking man with whom these women are fighting over.. It’s interesting to me that these women often have jobs like a yoga instructor, kindergarten teacher, dancer, etc.  We rarely see a small business owner or doctor. We have a group of women who are fighting for their prince charming to take care of them and sweep them off their feet.  It all seems very medieval to me. This show basically represents every man’s fantasy; dating a lot of beautiful women, all fighting for his love. And here is a representation of a woman from years ago.. one who wants to find a man to take care of her so she can have children and take care of the home.  It all seems like values that our country should have moved on from by now. A woman is supposed to show her best self on this show.. not to gain connections or even friends, but to up her chances at being “the chosen one”. I also think that people love to see the girls get manipulative with each other so that the stereotype can further be exposed. 

Does the fact that there is a bachelorette fix these stereotypes? No.  When Tricia (bachelorette) was asked about the fact that she kissed multiple men she quickly point out that she was “not a tramp” she was a “nice girl”.  Something that a bachelor would never have to justify. 

 

So yes, the bachelor is entertaining.  But its ideas are medieval and overdone.  

Elite Daily

Elite Daily is a “blog”-like website that aims to give a voice to the Y-generation. People are able to submit their own blogs with their own topics.  This may seem like there would be no gatekeeping or bias involved.  However, the blog has been criticized for having “elitist” stories.  Stories of rich kids discussing “how much is too much?”.  There is no hard hitting news that touches on huge fundamental problems. I understand the approach.  People of this generation like to have easy access to quick stories that get straight to the point.  In Elite Daily’s case, our generation wants to live vicariously through these stories of money, partying, relationships, hook ups, etc.  It’s kind of like instagram.  People use this app as an opportunity to show off their life, to make it seem exactly how they want others to view it.  Elite Daily makes this generation seem like the most fun people in the world.  

Not only do we have the access to an abundance of information, we also have the ability to post information very easily.  Posting blogs teaching people the “8 ways to make him love you”, or “20 things you learn in your 20s” is great, but is it true?  We take these things and take them as facts. Elite Daily has been criticized for having mindless topics. Dumbing down an already “lazy” generation. The site does keep a simple theme.  Light topics, entertaining, easy to read.  Nothing hard hitting or controversial. Elite wants to be known as the news for our generation, but what are we really getting out of it? Yes, we are able to read voices of our generation but we arent learning anything.  We aren’t truly gaining knowledge even though we convince ourselves that we are.

About

 

Regulating the Truth

I was most interested in the section pertaining to the regulation of media content and distribution, specifically, the regulation of morality.  I think the title itself is kind of funny.  How can someone regulate morality? What is moral and what is not is not something you can find set in stone. It differs from one person to the next.  This led me to ask, who exactly is deciding what is moral and immoral? Who decides what is just vulgar enough for me to see or something that is not decent enough for the general public to see? I think there would be a very thin line. Let’s be honest, nothing that a TV show could air could be as horrific as things happening in the real world. All of these things really exist.. When Bob Dole made a speech referring to the “evil” in popular culture, I wonder if he also referred to the “evil” in the real world.  To say “one of the greatest threats to American family values is the way our popular culture ridicules them” is absurd to me. Yes, TV and movies regularity “push the limits of decency”, but it does only because that is what people want to see.  It’s what we as Americans find to be entertaining. Is that saying something about our general population? Probably.  But it’s the truth.  Do I think shows like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy should be used to teach young children the “values of American families”? No.  But I don’t think that is what their purpose is.  Shows like this are used as pure entertainment for those watching it.  I understand that they have an effect on people’s behaviors and actions, but not to the extent that critics give them credit for.  I watch those shows and still believe that cooking meth is bad… Dole once said that “corporate executives [hide] behind the lofty language of free speech in order to profit from debasing America”. Hollywood and producers all over the world know what viewers wants to see; sex, drugs, and violence.  I know critics say that this persuades young people, makes light of these things.  However, I think quite the opposite. I watch shows like Sons of Anarchy and Breaking Bad because they are the exact opposite of my life.  I don’t know people selling meth, killing people in opposing gangs, or running a motorcycle gang. I use these shows as pure entertainment because I have nothing like this in my real life. I understand that at a very young age, a child may not be able to understand that these shows depict things that are not “right” or “moral”.  If parent is so concerned with this then it is their job to make sure their child knows right from wrong. Kids need to know that life isn’t always flowers and butterflies.  Whether they find out through television or the real world is up to fate but the day will come. Moderation and control.  I think that these two things are, by far, enough regulation for “morality”.

I don’t have any kids, and know that my thoughts and feelings may change one day.  As of now, I stick to my word.  I think that if a parent has such a huge deal with the content available to children these days then maybe they should take some extra time to explain to their children what THEY think is moral and right and wrong. Engrain that into their minds before the media has time to “corrupt” them.

Hearst Corporation

The Hearst Corporation is a mass media corporation based in Manhattan, New York.  It was founded in 1887 by William Randolph Hearst.  Hearst began as a newspaper company, publishing The Examiner. Within a few years, The Examiner was extremely successful, Hearst then bought out The New York Journal and laid foundation for the future of the company. By the 20’s, Hearst was the largest mass media corporation in the world. With divisions in television, newspaper, magazines, and real estate, Hearst is now one of the most diversified companies in the world. 

 

“Ownership Map”

Hearst operates in 4 major divisions.

Magazines

ELLE

Marie Claire

Cosmopolitan

Esquire

Car and Driver

Country Living

Elle Decor

Good Housekeeping

House Beautiful

O, The Oprah Magazine

Popular Mechanics

Redbook

Road & Track

Seventeen

Town & Country

Veranda

Woman’s Day

Food Network Magazine

Nat Mags

The Good Life

Harper’s Bazaar

Newspapers

San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California)
The News-Times (Danbury, Connecticut)
Greenwich Time (Greenwich, Connecticut)
The Advocate (Stamford, Connecticut)
Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, Connecticut)
Edwardsville Intelligencer (Edwardsville, Illinois)
Huron Daily Tribune (Bad Axe, Michigan)
Midland Daily News (Midland, Michigan)
Times Union (Albany, New York)
Beaumont Enterprise (Beaumont, Texas)
Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas)
Laredo Morning Times (Laredo, Texas)
Midland Reporter-Telegram (Midland, Texas)
Plainview Daily Herald (Plainview, Texas)
San Antonio Express-News (San Antonio, Texas)
seattlepi.com, formerly the Seattle

Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Washington)

Darien News (Connecticut)
Fairfield Citizen (Connecticut)
Greenwich Citizen (Connecticut)
New Canaan News (Connecticut)
New Milford Spectrum (Connecticut)
Norwalk Citizen (Connecticut)
Westport News (Connecticut)
Marlette Leader (Michigan)
Vassar Pioneer Times (Michigan)
Advertiser North (New York)
Advertiser South (New York)
Ballston Spa Pennysaver (New York)
Clifton Park North Pennysaver (New York)
Clifton Park South Pennysaver (New York)
Latham Pennysaver (New York)
Pennysaver News (New York)
Spa City Moneysaver (New York)
The Weekly (New York)
Bulverde Community News (Texas)
Business Express (Texas)
Canyon News (Texas)
Conexión (Texas)
Hardin County News (Texas)
Jasper Newsboy (Texas)
Kelly USA Observer (Texas)
La Voz (Texas)
Lackland Talespinner (Texas)
Fort Sam Houston News Leader (Texas)
Medical Patriot (Texas)
Muleshoe Journal (Texas)
Neighborhood News (Texas)
North Central News (Texas)
Northwest Weekly (Texas)
Our People (Texas)

Randolph Wingspread (Texas)
Northeast Herald (Texas)
Southside Reporter (Texas)
The Zapata Times (Texas)

 

Television and Cable

Esquire Network (joint venture with NBCUniversal, replaced Style Network on September 23, 2013)
A+E Networks (owns 50%; shared joint venture with The Walt Disney Company)
ESPN Inc. (owns 20%; also shared with Disney, which owns the other 80%)
CTV Specialty Television (owns 4% through its co-ownership of ESPN; shared joint venture with Bell Media, which owns 80%)
Hearst Television Inc. (owns 100%; owner of 29 local television stations and two local radio stations)

 

Internet

Answerology
Kaboodle
eCrushRealAgeseattlepi.com (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Delish.com
RealBeauty.com
Manilla.com
Digital Spy

 

http://www.hearst.com/our-brands/index.php

(wikipedia)

 

Hearst is an extremely large conglomerate and controls a large segment of today’s media. The emphasis is on Hearst’s print media, owning 15 daily and 36 weekly newspapers.  I found it interesting that while Hearst did not completely all of their conglomerates, they do have a strong investment in many television and cable networks.  Having a strong presence gives them power.  The concentration of ownership is something that we have discussed as being a way to control what the general population has access to. Especially in Texas, where Hearst owns more than 20 newspapers. Hearst has been horizontally integrating within the past 100 years. Rather than up and down through one industry, Hearst has acquired more and more types of media from newspapers to television channels.

In 2006, there was a lawsuit filed against Hearst Corp. and MediaNews Group, alleging that the two were conspiring to control advertising rates. I thought this was interesting.  Being able to control all aspects of production allows for companies to have a lot of power.  This was an example of too much power, it looked as though the companies were violating antitrust laws.

I also found it interesting that a lot of subsidiaries are not as well known.  Yes, there are some major names but the bulk of these magazines and newspapers are not as well known.  In over 100 countries, Hearst owns some sort of media.  In conclusion, Hearst corporation owns a wide variety of media companies in a wide variety of places which gives them a lot of power.

 

Sources:

http://www.hearst.com/our-brands/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Corporation