Celebrities should expect some level of privacy depending on how public they keep their lives. If a celebrity keeps mostly private, their privacy should be respected, but those who share much about themselves publicly should expect both positive and negative press about private matters that enter the public sphere. News of celebrity phone hackings would be broadcast on entertainment and radio stations to appeal to interested audiences, and interviews gathering public opinions could provide follow-up stories by presenting different perspectives on the issue. Admitting the BBC's past liberal bias on immigration was also deemed newsworthy and would be covered nationally due to high public interest in politics and debates.
4 sentences each opinion based1. I think the value of local au.docxtaishao1
4 sentences each opinion based
1. I think the value of local autonomy for journalists and producers comes from the fact that local news stories would essentially be "easier" to investigate and report on. If there was local autonomy, journalists and producers could feel more confident in fulfilling their duty to providing a public service by reporting local news stories truthfully because they could work hand-in-hand to report the facts to the public. In addition to that, I feel it would add to network and journalist credibility because journalists may feel even more motivated to thoroughly investigate the truth behind local stories and confer with credible sources, and it also allows the public an option to view multiple news networks but trust they are getting the same, true story. I think local autonomy in this way has the potential to build public trust and faith in their reporting which would ultimately ensure journalists and producers remain in business. I also think there can be value in local autonomy when something is deemed vital for the public to know by local constituents, and the story actually gets reported and not ignored. As far as seeing a difference in mergers that involve journalism and mergers that are largely about entertainment, I do not see much. I understand the argument made by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin when he essentially states that having ownership of too many networks could "threaten diversity and localism in broadcasting,... and harm competition," and that is the same argument that can be and is made about mergers such as AT&T/Time Warner and Disney/ Fox. Essentially it is argued that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing and both types of mergers having ownership of too much can have bad consequences, so ultimately I do not think there is much of a difference between the two.
2.A journalists job is to put out information in news that everyday people benefit, learn, and understand from. If the information they put out isn't helping citizens, factual, and can be trusted; it is useless and damaging. They have a high value of making sure their facts and stories are correct without causing damage to themselves and us as citizens.
I do not see a difference between the Sinclair merger with Tribune or AT& T and Time Warner or Disney and Fox.
3.There’s not a difference between the Sinclair merger with Tribune and Disney/FOX and AT& T/ Time Warner. They all own a majority of the media, such as newspapers and broadcast. The value of local autonomy for journalist and producers are serving the public. Most journalist and producers are worried about protecting their “brand” than giving the readers what they need. Most consumers don’t trust these corporations because they are just looking to make money than to be credible. For example, critics argue that Sinclair uses its television stations to promote right wing propaganda. Sinclair also required their anchors and reporters to read positive messages supporting .
1. Can celebrities expect privacy? I believe that a celebrity should be allowed expect privacy in
their lives depending on how the deal with attention from the media and general public. If a
celebrity keeps their life mostly out of the media’s spotlight I believe that their privacy
should be respected and that they should be left alone by the media. One of the reasons I
think this is because some celebrities like to stay private to protect their families from
unwanted attention such as the paparazzi. However if a celebrity stays in the lime light given
from the media and if they use that attention to further their own career’s, I believe they
should expect people to breech their privacy as they are open about their lives anyway. I
also feel they should expect bad press as well as good if something from private lives is
drawn to the attention of the public.
A news story about a celebrity phone hackings would be broadcasted on channels such as
MTV and radio stations such as BBC 1. These example stations have target audiences who
would be interested in the celebrity phone hackings; this makes the news story a high
priority for these stations to broadcast. The phone hacking scandal is a feature story so it
would be displayed nationally to maximise the audience and alert the public more to this
information. If anybody of a different nationality had been involved in this story it would
have been internationally broadcasted. As the celebrity phone hacking story was slowly
being released to the public, the media was interviewing the public finding out people’s
thoughts and views on the event. This is because its human interest to gossip and argue
opinion’s which is entertaining. These interviews could be seen as follow up stories as they
can create two sides to a story and link it to the main event. For example, one side could be
a celebrity talking about how their privacy was breached, while the other side is from the
public talking about how they have the right to know more about celebrities. The reporter
would use quotes gathered from the interviews to use as content in their shows, however
they could use the full interview if they have footage to accompany it (this only applies to
news television shows).
The other story I have been assigned to look into is the “BBC liberal bias” this is about when
the former BBC news director Helen Boaden admitted that the corporation held a deep
liberal bias in its coverage of immigration when she took up the role back in 2004. This story
was broadcasted nationally as a large percentage of the UK would have wanted to know this
information. This story would take priority over most other stories on stations such as BBC 1
and BBC 4 as stories about politics are higher public demand. News reporters would try to
link this story to past events, to try and create a debate. This would create more interest I
the story therefore informing more people about the event, this can also be seen as human
interest. The reporter would use clips from interviews to accompany the story, on the
television the whole interview would be used because they have footage to piece together
with it. This would be the availability of audio that can be used by all broadcasters.
The public interest agenda ties into all the sections, if a story has a higher importance more
people will pay attention towards it. If public care for the story being told they will show
2. more interest and have more of an opinion towards the event. Most people, who were
interested in the celebrity phone hacking, would only pay attention if it was about
celebrity’s they care about. They would be less likely to pay attention if it was about
celebrity’s they have no interest in. With the second news story, the audience would be on
one of two sides either for or against the BBC. This allows for more of a debate to happen
between the public that would change over time depending on the outcome of the event.