Many people accuse FOX news of having a conservative bias, and The Daily Show of having a liberal bias (you could also substitute MSNBC on the liberal side). Working in the computer lab, students will search foxnews.com for "George Bush" and try to find an a story that shows FOX News being critical of President Bush. Then searching dailyshow.com for "Obama" students will find an example of John Stewart being critical of President Obama. How are their criticisms similar? How are they different? Even when they are being critical, do you detect any bias? Is it a harsh criticism or do they go easy on "their" president? How can you tell? In what ways (if any) are humor, sarcasm or irony used? How does each broadcast use headlines and graphics? Is bias detected regarding the way the printed word is used in the piece?
Students will present their findings to the class (and time permitting, will show brief clips of their examples).
We will tally the results to try to determine which source appears more biased of "their" supposed president of choice.
Rationale: This activity will give students the opportunity to do their own multi-media research into the commonly discussed idea of a politically biased media and then come to their own conclusions, rather than simply repeating an established party stance. Doing this kind of online, video research (as opposed to using only traditional print sources) helps students to deal with the kinds of informational sources that they are likely to encounter in the real world. By analyzing these stories, students will gain experience in evaluating messages in order to make informed political decisions.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Where was tonight's equivalent to the coupon cutting story KARE 11 ran last night?
So I think that KARE 11 execs must be reading our blogs. Tonight they did a critique on media coverage of the H1N1 virus. HA!
A quick thought about the news and my own consumption habits.
Reading chapter nine from Teaching Media Literacy as well the news analysis assignment got me to thinking about my own news consumption, and how my habits have drastically changed over the years.
When I was in High School, I could care less about the news and current events. I was in to the arts (primarily music) and I rarely if ever watched the news. I was more concerned with the new Pavement record than the news about the Middle East. I became slightly more interested in college, but I remember the exact day that my news viewing/reading habits changed. 9/11. While it's true that the entire nation was glued to their television sets for that day and the weeks to come...my news habit continues to this day. Hell, I even watch Meet the Press whenever I have the chance. This may in part be due to just becoming older, but I think that those events really got me thinking more about the world as a whole. And I think that this trend of wanting to know more about the world, and hence become more involved in the world has played a big role in my decision to leave my old career and become a teacher. Reflecting on my high school self also makes me wonder about today's students' news consumption habits. Of course it's vital to teach them to critically analyze the news, but I need to also continue developing ways of making students care about the news in the first place.
When I was in High School, I could care less about the news and current events. I was in to the arts (primarily music) and I rarely if ever watched the news. I was more concerned with the new Pavement record than the news about the Middle East. I became slightly more interested in college, but I remember the exact day that my news viewing/reading habits changed. 9/11. While it's true that the entire nation was glued to their television sets for that day and the weeks to come...my news habit continues to this day. Hell, I even watch Meet the Press whenever I have the chance. This may in part be due to just becoming older, but I think that those events really got me thinking more about the world as a whole. And I think that this trend of wanting to know more about the world, and hence become more involved in the world has played a big role in my decision to leave my old career and become a teacher. Reflecting on my high school self also makes me wonder about today's students' news consumption habits. Of course it's vital to teach them to critically analyze the news, but I need to also continue developing ways of making students care about the news in the first place.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Effective leaders in the workplace
Williams and Murry, in their book about starting your own business, The Complete Guide to Working for Yourself have a few simple rules for being an effective boss:
1) Treat employees with fairness.
2) Consider each employee as an individual.
3) Be an enthusiastic leader.
This sounds like a book that Michael Scott has read, or maybe just skimmed. While these may be realistic guidelines, the media rarely portrays “effective” bosses treating employees as individuals; rather, they tend to have a more militaristic interaction spewing out commands to their subordinates. While the media portrays effective leaders as “enthusiastic” (in a stern and serious way), treating employees “fairly” never seems to be a high priority.
Amanda Sposato in her article, “Tips for Being an Effective Boss” says that, “It's fine for a boss to be on good terms with their employees, but it's also important that the job get done. An effective manager finds the middle ground. When they do, productivity increases and the workplace becomes an overall good environment.” Here are some more of Sposato's suggestions:
1.Put the job first
2.Don't play favorites
3.Be honest
4.Make yourself approachable
5.Set an example
6.Give the respect you want to receive
7.Avoid "blaming" confrontations
8.Be willing to pick up the slack
Most “effective” bosses in the media consistently “put the job first” (#1), and are “willing to pick up the slack” (#8), and maybe #5. They're usually extremely unapproachable, dishonest, look for anyone to blame but themselves. The game of favorites is common and respect is rare as most employees are looked at by these TV bosses as incompetent.
Ifeanyi Onuoha offers this advice, "If as a boss, you are the only person who enjoys working in your company, then you have failed. You cannot claim to be a good boss if the only reason your employees are still working for you is because they have no alternative." Most effective bosses in the media seem that they could care less if anyone else is happy. In fact, most of these bosses would probably frown upon outward expressions of happiness as it goes against their strict, stern, "business first" demeanor.
Authors Alaina Love and Marc Cugnon in their book, The Purpose Linked Organization believe that business should leverage individuals' sense of purpose. By using this combined power, they believe that businesses will be more successful than if people are just going to work to collect a paycheck. Effective bosses in the media rarely seem to care about the individual's needs, purposes, or skills.
Looking at listings for CEO positions on Monster.com, I came across the following jobs:
The first one is for a CEO at a Healthcare facility in Texas:
“The CEO is responsible for creating an environment and culture that enables the hospital to fulfill its mission by meeting or exceeding its goals, conveying the hospital mission to all staff, holding staff accountable for their performance, motivating staff to improve performance and being responsible for the measurement, assessment and continuous improvement of the hospital's performance."
Here’s one for a CEO of a treatment facility in Wisconsin:
”The President / C E O must demonstrate visionary leadership, business acumen, and a commitment to Chileda's Mission, 'Unlocking Potential.' This position must completently represent Chileda to the public, to consumers, and to professionals in the field of developmental disabilities."
It seems that bosses are often responsible for a lot of vague and “big picture” items such as creating a certain kind of environment, and “Unlocking potential.” Again, if one looks at the philosophies of Michael Scott, he strives to do these things, but he rarely does them well. Hardnosed bosses in the media rarely seem to care about a nurturing environment or unlocking potential. They just want everyone to do what they say and not ask a lot of questions. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here, as the Michael Scott type of boss technically seems to follow most of the “rules” of being a good boss, but he is portrayed as a terrible leader. The tough bosses don’t follow many of these rules, but are portrayed as successful leaders.
1) Treat employees with fairness.
2) Consider each employee as an individual.
3) Be an enthusiastic leader.
This sounds like a book that Michael Scott has read, or maybe just skimmed. While these may be realistic guidelines, the media rarely portrays “effective” bosses treating employees as individuals; rather, they tend to have a more militaristic interaction spewing out commands to their subordinates. While the media portrays effective leaders as “enthusiastic” (in a stern and serious way), treating employees “fairly” never seems to be a high priority.
Amanda Sposato in her article, “Tips for Being an Effective Boss” says that, “It's fine for a boss to be on good terms with their employees, but it's also important that the job get done. An effective manager finds the middle ground. When they do, productivity increases and the workplace becomes an overall good environment.” Here are some more of Sposato's suggestions:
1.Put the job first
2.Don't play favorites
3.Be honest
4.Make yourself approachable
5.Set an example
6.Give the respect you want to receive
7.Avoid "blaming" confrontations
8.Be willing to pick up the slack
Most “effective” bosses in the media consistently “put the job first” (#1), and are “willing to pick up the slack” (#8), and maybe #5. They're usually extremely unapproachable, dishonest, look for anyone to blame but themselves. The game of favorites is common and respect is rare as most employees are looked at by these TV bosses as incompetent.
Ifeanyi Onuoha offers this advice, "If as a boss, you are the only person who enjoys working in your company, then you have failed. You cannot claim to be a good boss if the only reason your employees are still working for you is because they have no alternative." Most effective bosses in the media seem that they could care less if anyone else is happy. In fact, most of these bosses would probably frown upon outward expressions of happiness as it goes against their strict, stern, "business first" demeanor.
Authors Alaina Love and Marc Cugnon in their book, The Purpose Linked Organization believe that business should leverage individuals' sense of purpose. By using this combined power, they believe that businesses will be more successful than if people are just going to work to collect a paycheck. Effective bosses in the media rarely seem to care about the individual's needs, purposes, or skills.
Looking at listings for CEO positions on Monster.com, I came across the following jobs:
The first one is for a CEO at a Healthcare facility in Texas:
“The CEO is responsible for creating an environment and culture that enables the hospital to fulfill its mission by meeting or exceeding its goals, conveying the hospital mission to all staff, holding staff accountable for their performance, motivating staff to improve performance and being responsible for the measurement, assessment and continuous improvement of the hospital's performance."
Here’s one for a CEO of a treatment facility in Wisconsin:
”The President / C E O must demonstrate visionary leadership, business acumen, and a commitment to Chileda's Mission, 'Unlocking Potential.' This position must completently represent Chileda to the public, to consumers, and to professionals in the field of developmental disabilities."
It seems that bosses are often responsible for a lot of vague and “big picture” items such as creating a certain kind of environment, and “Unlocking potential.” Again, if one looks at the philosophies of Michael Scott, he strives to do these things, but he rarely does them well. Hardnosed bosses in the media rarely seem to care about a nurturing environment or unlocking potential. They just want everyone to do what they say and not ask a lot of questions. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here, as the Michael Scott type of boss technically seems to follow most of the “rules” of being a good boss, but he is portrayed as a terrible leader. The tough bosses don’t follow many of these rules, but are portrayed as successful leaders.
Representations of bosses in the media:
It seems that there are usually two main representations of bosses, either they are a) a completely flawed and ineffectual individual, or b) a total hardass who is more like a robot than a human being. In other words, they’re either terrible at their job and anybody would seem better qualified, or they’re mean, unlikeable and overly focused. The common trait seems to be an outward appearance of extreme self-confidence (even if it’s a façade). Most people in America have had to deal with bosses at some point in their careers; even bosses usually have to report to someone else; These people are often criticized for the decisions they have to make, which inevitably results in some party being unsatisfied. The assumption is that if someone is going to achieve their American dream and climb the corporate ladder by being a good, effective boss, they're probably going to have to be a huge jerk.
Now of course, the first example that comes to mind when it comes to bosses is The Office. Both the UK and the US versions show bosses (David Brent and Michael Scott, respectively) who are overconfident to a fault, completely blind to their own inadequacies.
The other main representation of a “boss” is the efficient, tough, uptight, unlikeable asshole who is extremely focused on the task at hand (whether it be making money, capturing the bad guy, solving the crime, etc). To these types of bosses, nothing matters more than the job, the corporation, or the task at hand. Human emotion does not enter in to the equation. Although these characters usually seem more interested in the company than anything else, they are often selfish individuals who care mostly about their own job and potential for advancement into a more powerful position. The following clip from 24 features George Mason (acting head of CTU) considering his future:
The principal from School of Rock is another example of the effective, strict boss; she doesn’t reveal human emotion until Jack Black gets her out of her work environment and gets her drunk. The show 24 often features some new boss who is sent by “division” or some higher authority to reassert control of the agency. In one of the odder casting choices of 21st century television, Sean Astin (formerly a hobbit) was brought in to play this role during season 5.
When comparing Tonight Show hosts Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien, who could be seen as the “bosses” of the show, we see this dichotomy play out. Jay Leno, who seems more content to make fun of other people through segments like “Jaywalking,” shows a boss who is self confident and better than everyone else. Self deprecating Conan O’Brian, on the other hand, consistently portrays himself as a buffoon with no fan base and terrible ratings. He "pretends" that he is not good at running the show.
One interesting combination of these two representations is Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock. Expertly portrayed by Alec Baldwin, he is simultaneously hardnosed and completely ridiculous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xKBw8xL6WE
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ad Analysis: Terry Tate: Office Linebacker
I chose the first "chapter" of the "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker" series of Reebok commercials (roughly the first 41 seconds of the following video):
Here's a link to my analysis:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhjtd9hz_0ctcz4rg3
Here's a link to my analysis:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhjtd9hz_0ctcz4rg3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
