For my mass media students. Here are THREE relatively short articles on the proposed Comcast-NBCU merger. One is from the Associated Press. The second is from a trade magazine (intended for TV/Cable professionals) and the third is from an activist group. For THREE participation points, read these three articles and comment on how they are different. MWF students -- comment by Monday Feb. 22nd. TH students, comment by Tuesday, Feb. 23rd.
Josh Silver/Free Press.net coverage:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/senator-franken-rips-into_b_450736.html
Story #3
Associated Press/as printed in Washington Post
AP story: Franken, Dems challenge Comcast, NBC on deal
February 4, 2010
Washington (AP) — Congressional Democrats challenged executives from Comcast Corp. and NBC Universal on Thursday to show that the cable TV operator's plan to take control of the entertainment company won't hurt consumers and rivals.
In back-to-back hearings, members of House and Senate subcommittees expressed concern that the transaction could lead to such competitive harms as higher cable TV rates and fewer video programming choices.
"The issue before us really boils down to the seven C's," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a senior member of the House Commerce subcommittee on communications and technology. "Will this combination of communications colossi curtail competition and cost consumers?"
Comcast, based in Philadelphia, is seeking federal approval to acquire a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co. The Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission are expected to sign off, but likely with conditions. Input from Congress could sway the outcome of those regulatory reviews.
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts told lawmakers that the combination would produce "a more creative and innovative company that will meet consumer demands" and drive more innovation among competitors.
NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker added that significant investment made possible by the combination would help NBC Universal compete in a rapidly evolving entertainment business that has become a "media free-for-all."
Comcast, which serves a quarter of all U.S. households that pay for TV, already owns some cable channels, including E! Entertainment and the Golf Channel. The deal would give Comcast control of the NBC and Spanish-language Telemundo broadcast networks, popular cable channels such as CNBC, Bravo and Oxygen and the Universal Pictures movie studio.
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., said he is worried about the dangers of allowing the nation's largest cable and broadband provider to take control of NBC Universal's vast media empire.
"When the same company produces the programs and runs the pipes that bring us those programs, we have a reason to be nervous," said Franken, a comedian who spent nearly two decades as a writer and performer for NBC's "Saturday Night Live."
Satellite TV companies and other rivals in the video business have warned that the combined company could drive up prices for - or even withhold - popular channels. And small independent programmers fear that Comcast cable systems could stop carrying channels that compete with its own, or relegate rival channels to premium tiers with fewer subscribers.
Public interest groups have also raised concerns that Comcast would begin charging for its media content online.
Roberts said the proposed transaction doesn't raise significant antitrust concerns because Comcast and NBC operate in highly competitive markets with a "lack of overlap." Several Republicans echoed that point.
"We've heard some of the usual predictions that this is the end of the media world as we know it," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "Put me down as skeptical on that."
Comcast has already made some pledges meant to ease worries about the deal. Among other things, the company has vowed not to move NBC's free, over-the-air network to cable and pledged to ensure that rival providers can get access to Comcast-owned programming at fair rates.
But Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that handles competition policy and consumer rights, said those pledges are merely a starting point and called on regulators to attach strong conditions on any merger approval.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Within these three articles, the Comcast/NBC potential merger debate between the mergies, Roberts/Zucker, and Franken of the Antitrust Subcommittee was the main topic of discussion. What each article brought to the table was a different use of media and description of the event.
ReplyDeleteThe Huffington Post was, by far, the easiest way to understand the entire situation via a Youtube recording of the argument and other things that the merger could possibly bring to the future. Broadcasting and Cable added a little more sarcasm to the topic and featured more of the numbers side of things. Finally, The Washington Post article summarized the entire argument, but also added additional information that wasn't provided in the other two. I found it interesting that their article also mentioned the 7 C's, which we discussed in class. In all, they got the main points of the debate across and gave the reader the inside scoop on this significant merger in the world of the media.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith all articles published within no more than 2 days apart from each other, the Free Press article by Josh Silver appears as more of a blog entry, making it easier for the reader. This article lays down what's going on between the two companies. It's the easiest read also, coming with video, loose writing, and a bullet form section explaining why we should be "afraid" of the Comcast/NBC merger.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post article seems to be more discreet about Sen. Franken's outburst towards Comcast's CEO, dubbing it "House Democrats challenge Comcast, NBC on deal." More emphasis should be put on their choosing of the word "challenge," avoiding the display of emotion towards the two companies. The B&C coverage isn't too hush-hush about Franken's feelings, but isn't as outspoken as Josh Silver's piece.
- Daniel Ramos
SPE 212-020 TTH 9:30
I'm getting an error message on the Washington Post article. Oh no!
ReplyDeleteI thinks it's pretty obviously to see the difference between each article and what side their on when discussing the subcommittee hearing.
ReplyDeleteThe article written by Broadcasting and Cable made Jeff Zucker and Brain Roberts look like the big bad wolfs who will rob their customers blind if this merger goes through. In the article they also make Al Franken look like the knight in shining armor coming to rescue the American people from this trouble media merger. It's clear to see that Broadcasting and Cable do not want the merger to be approved.
Josh Silver article by the Free Press really gave it to their reader straight of how bad of an idea it is for this merger between Comcast and NBCU will be for everyone. The article even gave a list of reasons of why it would be a destroy, if the subcommittee allowed the merger. You know that the Free Press was against the big media.
Now the Associated Press as printed in Washington Post took a different route from the other two articles. They did list why people don't want the merger but they also did bash the merger either. In the article they mention how Comcast promises to think of their customer and pledged to ensure that rival providers can get access to Comcast-owned programming at fair rates. Reading the article you can tell Associated Press did not want to bad mouth Comcast or NBCU. I got the feeling the newspaper has some kind of tie to their media company because they were too nice about talking about the merger.
Reading these three articles was like reading about three different topics because they all were very different. Of course they were all about Comcast and NBC merging but the first article was like reading a different language for me. The second was so easy to understand. Putting it into numbers and was written in terms of understanding and it was written for those reading the article that had no background information. Washington post summed up the entire piece with everything there was to know. The 7 C's were discussed that was not dicussed in the other articles. I thought it was interesting that in the second article Comcast is the 2nd worst service coming short to number one behind AOL.
ReplyDeleteThe second article from the Huffington Post was definitely the easiest to understand and they explained the situation very well. I thought it was really interesting how they put a video from the conference on the website because it really gave readers the full effect of what happened. I enjoyed how they put a top 10 list of the reasons why the Comcast and NBC merge would be bad. I was happy to see that we as the public are not the only one's who believe that this could be a bad thing. I'm glad that the Senate is taking as much precaution as possible. Comcast promises certain things, but will they actually hold their promises? These articles were really interesting, but I enjoyed reading the second and third article more than the first one.
ReplyDeleteEach article was different for the audience they wanted to seek. The first article, I could barely understand. This article was directed towards the people that were already familiar with the situation, and understood for the most part what was going on. This was an update on the issue concerning these huge companies coming together. The second article really broke this issue down into an easier style for the more diverse audience. The bullets and more casual dialogue really made this article easy and comprehendible. The third article was the median in the compared to the dialogue presented.
ReplyDeleteAs for content, they were all the same, each just added a different flair. Each article represented the fears of the two companies merging, as well as explaining the consequences of them merging.
it feels like these are three different subjects or at least three slightly similar subjects that have little to do with the other in any ways...but i digress...
ReplyDeletei personally have not heard anything about the merger outside of class and i wonder why, i honestly don't know and its kind of weird.
i feel thought that it shouldn't go through. knowing how american business's are kinda makes it feel all wrong on the inside, two giant corporations merging together to form one giant mega corp, isn't that what we are trying to prevent in america?
Media bias "refers to the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered."
ReplyDeleteThe Associated Press article covers the merger with a neutral voice. The start of the article provides of an overview of the situation without condemning either side. Although Zucker (who wants the merger) is the first to be quoted, Franken is quoted right after. Instead of letting one side talk for a long duration which creates a snowball affect like the Broadcasting & Cable article.
By organizing the article in this way it gives the reader the ability to make their own decision based on facts rather than the opinion of the writer.
The lead of the Huffington Post article is a little misleading because it is a neutral lead just dictating the facts. But, we immediately know the opinion of the writer by the title and also by the second line of the second paragraph, "While nobody in the room cracked a smile, their enthusiasm is laughable." We now know Josh Silver thinks its funny that Comcast and NBC would think their merger wouldn't have any horribly consequences. Silver then lists the consequences.
The 3rd article from Broadcast & Cable isn't as straight-forward with the negative bias like the Silver article, but the article gives the pedestal to Franken (against the merger) for the beginning half of the article, which tells the reader Franken's opinion is the most important to know. The largest 'tell' is the inclusion of "Franken came just short of saying Roberts had mislead him in a meeting" - solidifying the idea that the opposing side are liars.
These three articles provide examples of media bias on the same subject. Sometime it is hard to see what side the writer is on but there are almost always characteristics in the structure of the article that will tell you the opinion the writer wants you to walk away with.
Each of these articles are basically the same things just Broadcast and Cable is ver blunt, it against the merger and it is very bias towards their opionion. This was a little difficult to understand however it did make the points that they wanted to.
ReplyDeleteThe second article was not so bias it allowed the reader to make their own opionion on the marger with NBC and comcast.
The last article from the Washington post i liked that they used the top ten reasons the merge would be bad. The other articles well, one was way bias and the other was boarder line but that was the one that a reader could understand.
These articles are all structured different however they are all leading to the same problem which is the merge. It is strange how three different bias are all so different but on the same topic. It was nice to see the conflict and I am surprised I have not heard more about this merger.
These three articles seem to present three different media bias about the same subject matter. The Huffington Post article is outright against this merger happening. No only do they spend half of it quoting naysayer Al Franken, but it's not very hard to see their point of view after a sentence like this, "Not everyone is swallowing the snake oil Comcast is peddling to grease its takeover of NBC".
ReplyDeleteThe Broadcast & Cable article isn't as loud about their opinion as the Huffington Post, but they gave me the impression that they aren't against the merger. Saying that the merger would "be the biggest media marriage since Lucy and Desi" leads me to believe that they are admitting this will be a very powerful merger, but it won't be as bad as everyone's assuming it will be.
The Associated Press article was as neutral as you could get on this subject. They quoted people from both sides, and otherwise simply stated facts from the recent hearings.
the three articles are all on the same issue but each present the information differently but the first one the broadcast company areticel is not very criticle about the moerger but the huffington post article showed how much sen. franken ripped about the idea of the merger there were ten different reasons as to why the merger is a bad idea. Sen. Frankens whole issue is how much power over the media Comcast would hold if the merger went through. but the third article seemed to be on the fence with the information presented
ReplyDeleteWithin each of the articles posted on this blog there is one similarity, the agenda of the source which produced the articles. The first source is from a broadcasting and cable company, that of which the writer describes events with the preconceived belief that the reader will deeply understand the interworking of a broadcasting and cable merger. The writer does not hesitate to get directly into the specifics of the merger; as if the reader of such an article would be a member of one of the cable companies. The second resource is that of the Associated Press, an organization which is worldwide and takes a broader approach to describing and interpreting the merger. The AP article uses simple information, backed up with credible sources and quotations. The AP article also does not go to in depth when speaking about the pros and cons of such a merger because it’s broad audience would probably not be directly familiar with the interworking of the merger. The final article is written with the intention of persuasion. The writer is trying to persuade the reader how bad the idea of merging the companies will be. The article is blatant opinion and lacks the opposition to the writers view on the subject. This article does little for describing the situation but tries to influence the reader with opinions and intriguing ideas and statements rather than presenting the facts of the merger.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference between these three articles is how the information is presented. Unlike how news should be featured, two of the articles, the Huffington Post article and the Broadcast & Cable article, present a strong media bias. The AP article is the only one that simply gives the reader facts and not opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn the Huffington Post article, the tone is merely sarcastic and the reader can tell which side the writer is on. The writer makes comments such as “...Politicians waxing poetic about how the merger is great for America” or “Their enthusiasm is laughable.” This article literally portrays Comcast as being the Big Bad Wolf and America being the three little pigs. A reader cannot judge for himself or herself in this article due to the one-sidedness.
The Broadcast & Cable article does not directly come out and state its side, but the opinions are still prevalent. The writer did attempt to create a neutral article with his tone and presentation; however, the article still seems to not favor the merger. By having Franken’s statements and opinions in the first couple of graphs, it gives the impression that his opinion is the right one. Although the article is not as blunt as the Huffington Post article, it still shows media bias.
The AP article is the only one that provides factual and credible information. This article simply states the facts and leave the media bias out of the article, which is how true journalism articles should be. A big reason for this may be that the Washington Post is a well-known print newspaper and many viewers read it for its neutral content. The two other articles are less known and internet-based. Many blogging journalists have more leeway with their writing than writers of credible newspapers.
With these three articles, it all comes down to reader’s choice. If a reader favors the merger or does not favor the merger, then he or she will seek information about those beliefs. As long as there is freedom of press, there will unfortunately be media bias.
After reading all three articles, it is clear that each one shows different beliefs through the way the material is presented. For me, the easiest and funnest one to read was the 2nd article by the Huffington Post. Although it leans specifically towards the merger being negative, the merger itself was difficult to understand; the article put the merger into perspective for me without denying information.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I believe the 3rd article by the Washington Post was the least biased; it presented the merger from both perspectives, and it also included some information the other two articles didn't, including the 7 C's which we learned in class.
Now all that's left to do is sit on the edge of our seats and wait for the merger to fail, or succeed...
Each article voiced an opinion on Comcast taking over NBC and other popular cable channels. The first article from BBC was confusing to read and clearly was not fond of the merging of such powerful media companies. BBC did not express as much hatred for the idea as did the the Huffington Post. The 10 reasons for concern of Comcast given by the Huffington Post made this article easy to read and easy to understand why everyone is nervous of the change. Finally the Washington Post remains pretty neutral, offering reasons why people are paranoid about the change and also gave an explanation of how Comcast will try to make the switch as a fair as possible.
ReplyDeleteAll three articles present the same information but in very different ways. I feel as though each of the author's exude some kind of media bias in one way or another. Personally, I found the second article the easiest to read. The language used was what I am more used to reading, and I found it the most enjoyable. The author of the first article jumps right into details about the merger, which I found a little more difficult to comprehend. This is the first time I am learning of this story, and the only information I have about it is what I learned from these works. The third article, however, was in my opinion the least biased. It presented material from each side. It also detailed a few things the other articles did not.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that they should go through with the merger. As two enormous companies try to become one, it almost appears as if they are trying to monopolize the industry. The way that the economy is now, I think it will denote healthy competition, and just be a bad decision overall.
After reading the three articles, I have a better idea of what is going on, although the articles presented the information in varied ways.
ReplyDeleteThe titles are considered a bridge to the reader. Most of the time, it is the title that attracts or repels a person. So, that is what I took notice to first. The first article, "Franken Spars with Roberts, Zucker at Comcast/NBCU Senate Hearing," gives the reader the indication that it was a small fight, but "Sen. Franken rips into Comcast CEO Brian Roberts" makes you feel as if it was merciless. The third article seemed very nuetral, in title and in content.
The first two articles seemed to be biased, while the last article presented arguments and quotes from both sides, presenting an informative, balanced piece.
While all three of the articles did offer information about the merger to three different audiences, I find the use of Sen. Al Franken's comments to be the best example of the various audiences each was composed for. The B & C article spent the lead linking Franken to NBC and illustrating how someone close to the people involved questioned the integrity of the statements issued. The article from the Free Press showed Franken as a Senator opposed to the merger for various reasons. The third article from the Washington Post only briefly mentioned Franken, crediting him as a skeptic to the merger's promises with past ties to NBC. I believe that the articles, while written directly in response to the merger of media conglomerates, raise other interesting questions of the merger of politics and entertainment. If Franken had not established himself through his years working for NBC, would he still be a viable commentator about the issue at hand? More importantly, would he still be a senator?
ReplyDeleteAll three articles seem very similar however have different view points. The first article, Franken Spars With Roberts, Zucker At Comcast/NBCU Senate Hearing dealt with both sides of the argument but was more against the merger than for it. It stated that Comcast cannot be trusted and then at the end of the article. Then Zucker stated, "the media free-for-all of today, Comcast's commitment to the broadcast network model could be crucial to its survival." The beginning of the article also spoke about the struggles of what went on in court unlike the others.
ReplyDeleteSenator Franken Rips Into Comcast CEO Brian Roberts article was completely against the Comcast and NBC merger. They even stated 10 different points on why the merge would be a bad idea. Many of them spoke about Comcast's bad customer service repuation.
Lastly, the article from the Associated Press spoke about how certain popular shows could be lost if the merge does happen. And small independent programmers fear that Comcast cable systems could stop carrying channels that compete with its own. Also, customers will have to start paying for media content online.
Overall, I took from all three articles that no one wants this merge to happen.
after reading the first one, it kind of seemed very back and forth. Stating who's on what side and alot of bickering, and found it kind of annoying to read.
ReplyDeleteThe second one was nicer especially with the youtube clips, gave a perspective of someone; Franken, who's looking out for the PEOPLE, and i think thats important.
The 3rd kind of seem like an overview of the 2, and explained a little more clearly... i dont know where i stand, whether or not they should be allowed. i do believe, no matter who tried to merge large companies (like these 2) would get the same amount of heat, Comcast and NBC Universal were just the first.
The Huffington Post article seemed the most opinionated. It had a top 10 list on how the merger would be detrimental all, according to Josh Silver. It was a clear and enjoyable article, because it gave the reader one’s point of view on the subject, blunt and direct.
ReplyDeleteThe other two articles had some opinion, but the biases were not as clear. The John Eggerton article was more in the favor of Franken and the Washington Post article was more in favor of the Comcast merger, but, again, they were subtle.
I have to admit, I was a little confused when finished reading the 3 articles. It felt like the 3rd article, from the Associated Press, was trying to play in the favor of Comcast. I believe the writer was trying to address the concerns of readers who, like Franken, are worried about the NBC comcast merger and what it could mean for our media. The second article, seemed to be the exact opposite. The writer focused on Al Franken, and how he felt about the current situation, even going so far as to show clips of the conference via youtube clips. Needless to say, this article, was certainly going out of its way to express it's hatred for the Comcast/NBC merge. And I could barely understand the first article. I believe the writer was going back and forth about what was "good" and "bad" about the NBC/Comcast merger. He would explain what people were so worried about, (particularly Fraken) and then get feedback from those who felt like the merger was going to help the media. It was like watching a tennis match.
ReplyDeleteThese three articles varied in two main ways.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, each article appeals to different audiences - one group, that is very familiar with the subject matter, another group that may have an idea of what is going on with Comacast and NBC, and thirdly for people who may just be discovering this media issue.
Secondly, each article seems to offer up a different way of projecting the issue via varying media forms: Online article, Youtube video, and actual newspaper.
Furthermore, I found that the three articles ranged from objective to very opinionated - which may or may not appeal to various readers.
I ended up reading the Huffington Post article last, and until I got to that one I admit I really didn't see much reason to care about this issue. I've never been too into television-- I only use my cable subscription for OnDemand, and we have Service Electric anyway. But to see a detailed list of reasons why Comcast is a bad company drove home the point a little better for why they should not have such nearly-unlimited power. In general, I feel like all huge companies are inherently pretty evil and will do just about anything to turn an obscenely large profit, but it is dangerous for such an organization to be in charge of how a large part of the country gets its news and entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI thought Franken made a really good point in the B&C article about how Comcast is saying that FCC regulations will keep everything in line-- yet Comcast is currently fighting these regulations in court.
Another thing I got from the HP article was how little Comcast does for its clients-- terrible customer service, raising rates, refusing to invest enormous profits into actually improving Internet services, blocking websites illegally, etc etc. I've never had Comcast and didn't hear about that stuff before. If a company is going to have so much power and influence, it should be because they deserve it-- because they worked hard to provide the best possible service and therefore people want them to be in charge of the media. But it doesn't ever seem to happen that way, which is unfortunate.
I think the HP article should probably be taken with a little grain of salt, anyway. Any article with such a clear agenda that is that biased makes me a little suspicious even though I felt I got by far the most out of that piece than the others.
Finally, I enjoyed Rep. Markey's use of alliteration in the third article.
Although covering the same story, these articles were written from three differemt angles. The Associated Press article was very business formal, like usual. It gave you the facts of the Comcast-NBCU merger and caught the reader up with the facts. It does not sway you in either way concerning the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Huffinton post article, though, is heavily weighted toward the negatives of this merger beong successfully brought out. The title itself lets you know what the article is going into detail abaout, "Senator rips into Comcast CEO." He goes on to explain the 10 reasons we should be afrais of this merger coming together and practically implies that Comcast is full of lies and deceit.
The B&C article was a happy medium on reporting on the issue. It provided the facts, but also touched base with the individuals from these companies and had some of their personal comments and outlook. This article did not take sides.
The three articles were extremely different. By reading each one it was easy to think of the topic from each perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe first article was kind of complicated. The language was directed toward people who basically read up on what's going on and have very strong opinions toward it. Also, it was in my opinion messy. It went back and forth and kind of contradicted itself. It was definitely aimed for people who know exactly what they're talking about.
The second article was kind of sarcastic or funny... it made light of the situation and took into consideration people who may be reading about it and not know what's going on. Also, the visuals and clips were helpful and more interesting.
The third article was a more journalistic perspective. We learn that a journalist should write from both sides and not have any definite opinion. It was a bit of a summary of the first two... and was almost like pros and cons of both. I thought it was cool how we learned about the 7 c's in class and the the third article mentioned that.
The signaling in all three of these articles is pretty clear. Each one seems to be targeting a specific audience.
ReplyDeleteThe Broadcasting and Cable article seems to be written for people who already know something about the subject matter. I would think, most likely, that this article is directed towards those who work or who have worked in the field. I wouldn't be surprised to find the web equivalent of a trade magazine if I were to page through the rest of B&C's content. That's what this particular article suggests, at least. Otherwise, B&C seems to be relatively unbiased. They make some decent points, though I found the article to be rather dry and in need of editing.
The Associated Press managed to be unbiased and interesting. I think this article was meant for people who read the news for just that - the news. My guess would be an older demographic, by which I simply mean that they're not targeting teenagers. The difference between the AP and B&C, however, is that the AP's writing seemed to be directed toward the average person. The article was coherent, I got the facts, and I don't feel that I was pushed to side with one team or the other.
The Huffington Post is a completely different story. This article wasn't even close to unbiased. The title alone let me know how the author felt. In fact, it seemed to be an all out attack on Comcast. The writing was simplified and read sort of like a blog. Though it was easy to read, it also came across as a bit paranoid. I think this article was pretty strongly directed toward a liberal, online audience. The videos were an excellent tactic in the way of reaching their demographic, if that is the case.
All three articles tell the same story - they just use different language or put a different spin on the situation.
The Associated Press story featured in the Washington Post reports in an objective manner. What's being discussed? The mega-merger between Comcast and NBCU. There is no conclusion yet, although there are many worried politicians. The AP article serves to inform.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, Josh Silver inserts himself in the news article. Franken is nervous, and so are we, he says. And to further his point, he offers 10 bulleted points that amplify the distrust in Comcast, assuming his audience also possesses distain for the company.
Al Franken makes a cameo in the AP article, plays a significant part in Silver's piece, but is the star of John Eggerton's Broadcasting & Capble article. "Franken, who worked with NBCU President Jeff Zucker's wife...got the pleasantries out of the way quickly...before taking off the gloves taking aim at the deal," says Eggerton. While his approach is more objective than Silver's, Eggerton has chosen specific imagery that pins Franken squarely against the mega-merger.
These three articles show in varying degrees how much emotional sway is exhibited by a reporter. It is challenging for readers to pry themselves from these strong opinions, but it is important that we are aware of the subjective approach versus newsworthy information.
It's interesting how the same event spawns different news stories. Whereas the Associated Press reports the story, what was said and by whom, it's more newsy.
ReplyDeleteIn the trade, 'Broadcasting & Cable' version, it leads the reader toward more of 'this is what you can expect to happen' and this is what you should be thinking as a professional in this industry.
The activist group, with its '10 more reasons to be very afraid of the proposed Comcast/NBC merger', reminds me of Chicken Little running around and screaming that the sky is falling.
It goes to show that the way a story is reported has just as much force as the content. So, if the merger goes through, how sad for the audience that Comcast/NBC will have more control over what and how it broadcasts.
The terrible writing in the B&C article made it difficult to comprehend. I realize this isn't a grammar or journalism course, but sentences like:
ReplyDelete"Franken suggested the companies public interest promises could not be trusted and that Comcast, for one, was arguing that FCC rules would protect consumers on one hand, while fighting the same rules in court,"
were so difficult to comprehend (did the writer really mean "companies"? company's? companies'?), I was taken out of the article. But I digress.
The Huffington Post article, despite its massive slant, was helpful because it spelled out -- in list form -- all the reasons the article's author thought that the proposed merger is bad. It's hard to argue with the writer, although it would be interesting to read an article slanted in favor of the merger, and read how author of that article would refute the points made by Josh Silver.
The Washington Post/AP article was about what you'd expect from the AP: a story of what happened, without the bias. I found it interesting, though, that although the B&C and Huffington Post articles emphasized Al Franken's opposition, the AP article didn't mention Franken until the eighth graf.
I trust Franken; this is a man who, dating back to his work on SNL, stood up for what he thought was right. He criticized NBC President Fred Silverman in the late-70s, and left with Lorne Michaels shortly thereafter. After returning to SNL in the mid-80s, he again left because he was opposed to Norm Macdonalds' taking over of Weekend Update. Franken seems like a guy with strong convictions, for which he's willing to fight, and it's a relief to discover there are politicians out there who (at least appear to) have the public's interest in mind.
On the same note, it's about the least surprising thing in the world to see that the Republicans are supporting the merger.
said,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all three articles, I found myself overwhelm. I had to read the articles a couple of times just to distinguish one from another. The first article from the AP Washington post seems to discuss the current events and what is happening to the emerging of both Comcast and NBC. This article seems to focus on a more professional viewer. I notice that it was more difficult to comprehend it. I could not relate or process the information as a whole. However, the other two seems more opinionate and easier to read. I was able to understand the broadcasting and cable article. It seem like this article was base on picking sides, where Comcast and NBC are presented as a negative to the media. It discusses more on persuaded the reader to chose one side of the conflict between the emerging of the companies. Finally the last article, Josh Silver/Free Press.net was the easiest to understand because I could really relate to what the article is discussing. The article base their information on how the ten reason why Comcast and NBC emerging is a terribly idea. It gave reasoning and example on how it will affect the media and public and the precautions that is needed to focus on.
Overall the articles talks in a political tone that may not appeal to the majority of the readers but does inform the public on the status of the companies.
The huffington post article had a big slant. I mean, it may have been completely true but we won't really know until after the merger, if one happens. The broadcasting cable article and the washington post article seemed pretty objective--or atleast as objective as news can be--and didn't seem to disimilar. I probably could've found more differences in them, but the general public doesn't nit-pick these things apart; they read them once, maybe twice.
ReplyDeleteAl Franken's mentioned heavily in all three, which is kind of nice because he seems like the designated voice of reason here. It's funny how the videos on huffington post are labeled something like "Al Franken Blasts Brian Roberts." I'm not sure the word 'blast' fits here; it's more like "Al Franken Does His Job and Asks Pressing Questions."
All three articles are very similar in the ideas that they are trying to portray, but however they have different views on what audience they are trying to reach. Overall I tend to agree with the article written by Josh Silver's article simply because I think this merger is a terrible idea. If feel and so does he the this will make a complete monopoly. Even if it all works out problems will arise from this merger and I feel that potentially this could be a terrible situation after the merger.
ReplyDeleteBeing an avid viewer of "The Daily Show," my immediate thought after reading all three of three articles was "I cannot wait to see what Jon Stewart has to say about this!" Unfortunately, however, the series is "on hiatus" and I will not be able to get my fix of punditry and satire until tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, each of these three articles is clearly targeted toward a different type of individual. The B&C article appears to be written as a trade magazine. Because it refers to an audience who is already familiar with the terminology of the industry, this article does not need to define who the FCC is or what a Senate Antitrust Committee does.
As a Professional Writing student, however, I found this article to be written in a very cumbersome manner. It appears as though John Eggerton was so caught up in relaying the details of a story that he forgot to submit this article to his editor before posting it. With a little line editing, this article could be more effective.
The Huffington Post article by Josh Silver is a classic example of two things: bias in the media and effective internet writing. Media are businesses who, in a consumer economy, work to provide their customers with a satisfying product while simultaneously filling their own pockets. The language of this article makes it clear that Silver is writing to a liberal audience. By calling Comcast's claims "snake oil" and praising Al Franken as someone who "shone brighter" than everyone else, Silver makes it clear both the message he is sending and who his target audience is.
In every writing course where web-based writing has been discussed, my professors have stressed the need to divide and conquer. Online readers are just a click away from ignoring everything you have to say, which means that it is important to divide up long blocks of text with videos, images, lists, bold face font and italics. Silver does a wonderful job with this by including three youtube clips and a bold-faced list of “10 more reasons to be very afraid of the proposed Comcast/NBC merger.”
The final article, written by the Associated Press, is an article created for the average reader who wants “Just the facts, ma’am.” (Interestingly enough, while “Just the facts, ma’am” is probably the most widely known Dragnet reference, Joe Friday never actually uttered this phrase.) The AP article cuts to the chase, detailing the state of the Comcast/NBCU merger in a way that most Americans can understand it. The writing is concise and professional, without omitting details important for the reader’s comprehension of the story. The author also cuts out much of the unnecessary drama created by the other news organizations in titling their articles “Senator Franken Rips Into Comcast CEO…” and “Franken Spars With Roberts…”. In my opinion, these titles are just silly and conjure up images of Al Franken boxing. (As a side note, Senator Franken boxing would be an interesting site to see, but a Google image search turns up only several pairs of Al Franken boxers—I don’t think I even want to know.)
These articles are all very different in their delivery and standpoints. I, as a Professional Writing major liked the New York Times one the best because it seemed to deliver the facts from both sides in the most (although their is some) unbiased way.
ReplyDeleteAt the opposite end, The Huffington Post article was the least fair. It was completely opposed to this merger, and against Comcast itself. There was very little mention of NBC in this article at all. It was very liberal in its tone that took on an almost hostile view toward this proposed merger.
The Broadcasting and Cable article seemed to not be for the idea, but wasn't bashing anyone in the process either, like Josh Silver did in his article. And there were fewer references to Comcast in this article, instead more about NBC.
I did, however, learn a lot from all three of these articles. Each had information that I was not aware of from reading a previous article: Silver's 10 things, the additional people involved in this debate from B&C and what the seven C's are from AP. And more, of course.
I also enjoyed how only two of the articles made it a point to say that Franken was formerly on Saturday Night Live, hm.
I enjoyed how the NY Times article stuck mostly with the facts, presenting both sides thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteI also truly enjoyed the second article, the one with the top 10 reasons to hate Comcast in it. I found this to be hilarious that this was a published article, it reminds me of that movie "10 things I hate about you". The first few things in that list, however, were good points to make, but then towards the end I feel the points were based on opinions, not facts (especially the one about Disney & AT&T & Viacom being the next big guys to merge with someone, there's nothing to prove that statement).
I personally would not like if this merger succeeded because having one company control what you see and how you see it can never result in a good thing.