Read, summarize, and respond to Chapter 6 of Bias by Sunday night. Post your summary/response here. The summary should be a single paragraph of about 150 words (more if you like). In your opinion, what is the main point of the chapter? What are the 3 most important pieces of evidence that support the point? There's no one right answer. Just do your best to fairly represent Goldberg's argument.
Next, in a separate paragraph, express your opinion of what you've read. Agree, disagree, or both? How does what you've read relate to your own experience? How do you feel about the Msm's handling of the issue? Any connections to how they've presented the global warming issue? Why do you think the msm, in both cases, is one-sided?
You don't have to answer all the above questions. They're just to get you thinking. The response paragraph should be about 150 words too.
I'll show you how I mark posts in class and homework, and summary/responses next week. Don't worry about having perfect grammar. I'm interested in what you really think. If you make your best effort, you can get excellent marks.
Next week, I'll give some suggestions about the essay. I'm starting with Chapter 6 because it plays nicely into another environmental issue we'll look at next week. I want you to read the introduction too, because it gives you a good feel for who the author is and why he wrote the book, but just respond to Ch 6.
Anyone who would like to discuss the book outside of class, see me or email me. I can spend an hour once a week with a small group to discuss/clarify points in the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
The main point of this chapter is that the media is blowing the AIDS epidemic out of proportion. There making AIDS appear as a disease that is affecting millions of heterosexuals when in reality it is a disease that is mainly hurting homosexuals and drug junkies. When heterosexuals have sex with bisexuals they catch it and past it on to other heterosexuals. The same applies when they use drugs. The reporters never seem to ask hard questions such as how did they actually get AIDS because it was politically impolite to do so. The media went along with the craze because it showed they were compassionate and more importantly boost ratings. The media paints a picture of innocent heterosexuals struck down by aids shouting out the message it can be anyone.
I agree with the author that the mass media is manipulating and not telling the whole truth. But at the same time if they did people would not have been practicing safe sex. Like the phrase “you can’t handle the truth”. I doubt the local populations across the world would support the AIDs cause and practice safe sex if they knew it mainly affected gays and drug junkies. They would thing they were immune. However the mass media also has the responsibility of telling the truth as it is, not being bias and over exaggerating. People may thing that it is not that serious of a crime. But just look at the Iraq War and media's handling of the topic before and during the initial invasion. The media went along with whatever the American government stated and did not ask the important questions.
Summary
AIDS decease is mostly popular among gay young men. It is most commonly transmitted among that group if people, through sex and using dirty needles when doing drugs. The two above mentioned groups, are the ones that are not that much noticed and cared about by the society, which considers them hopeless. “The goal was simple: scare the hell out of straight America – then they would have to pay attention.” - said activists. With the medias help, they got it, as studies and research showed that not only homosexual people are affected by it, but also heterosexual ones. This created the panic and fear for the society, which thought that is something that would never affect them in any way, not too long ago. As the panic and so called “epidemic” were transmitted, different theories and sides of the story started to come up. Some said that it does concern them, others paid more attention to it thinking, and it interferes with everyone life. Different researches and studying showed different results, of who actually is in the most danger of being affected by AIDS. However, it was clear that all this revolved around money, the more attention were on the topic, the more money television companies made.
I completely agree with the author, media tent to blow all news and updates out of proportion, that’s the way they make money- its business. The way the Issue with AIDS is handled by the media, significantly relates to the issue of global warming. As well as, the reaction from public is very similar. People tent to take everything way to serious. Also, they don’t pay attention to the opposite side of the issue, which leads them to confusion.
The main point of this chapter is that the media are making money from blowing AIdS epidemic out of proportion.At the same time they are making people to believe they are being compassionate. AIDS earliest victims were mostly gay people and Junkies who share needles. these are people the society does not really care about. AIDS activits got the media to potray AIDS as a disease that is killing millions of heterosexuals. by so doing they will get the Government involved. When the media interviewed people with AIDS they failed, to asked them how they contacted the virus because they feel it is impolite to ask such questions.
I totally agree with the author that the media always blow news out of proportion with the hope of making more money. On the contrary, the media has brought the awareness to millions of people that AIDS exist and "it does not discriminate". This also relate to the issue of Global Warming. Scare the people and get the attention of those in power.
Though many believed that AIDS was only a virus for “homosexuals and drug addicts”, the media was quick to inform the public that this virus does not discriminate. Any individual, according to the media, could catch AIDS whether you were a homosexual, a heterosexual or a drug user. Other authorities, outside the media, also claimed that the virus could indeed affect anyone (which helped to strengthen the media’s stories). However, according to Bernard Goldberg, the media decided to direct this dilemma towards all individuals so that everyone would be “equal”. Goldberg also addresses the fact that the media wanted everyone to know that the media has compassion for the distraught. Thus, the media’s “powerful” message also helped to boost their ratings. Michael Fumento, among others, also tried to fight against the majority’s perspective about AIDS. Fumento claimed in his book that the government had been “misleading the public on the extent of the AIDS epidemic”. Unfortunately, those who were like Fumento, failed to spread their opposing point of view because it was “politically incorrect”. Therefore the media was able to draw out the public’s fear on an issue that was only supposed to be minor.
Though the media failed to inform the public of the truth, in terms of the individuals it was targeted towards, they did help to inform everyone of the problem. In my opinion, we sometimes need to be frightened in order to take immediate actions. However, Fumento (and those who tried to fight against the media) should have been given the chance to pose their arguments/ findings to the public. Thus, I believe that the media should give different sides to an issue so that the public could make a better decision rather than jumping into conclusions with a one-sided perspective.
Overall, the main concept that this chapter revolved around was that of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, otherwise what we refer to in a more simplistic term AIDS. As we all know AIDS is a very serious illness, and takes the lives of a number of people. AIDS was an illness that was first found in homosexuals, and the very unsanitary use of sharing needles for drug injections, and later was also found within heterosexual’s as well. This chapter discusses the fact that the media (like always) went above and well over the top in regards to voicing this matter, through saying alleged things such as the disease is taking the lives of a colossal amount of heterosexuals. This attempt was exceedingly overdone, presented “empathy” and “pity” for the affected and their families. From what I have gathered this was done in an effort so that the media could get the answers in which they were looking for, by luring people of all sorts in – victims, their families, and the general public. All in all, the main point of this chapter is that AIDS is a very unfortunate and serious issue that lives within our society, and can affect lives of just about anyone.
In my opinion the MSM boosts, and over does anything that they possibly can. The issue of AIDS is very, very serious and I am aware of this, and much of the reason is because of what I have seen, and heard from the media over the years. Contraceptives and the safe intercourse in some respects are owed to some of what the media has preached. I feel that two sides to an issue are of immense importance and people’s understandings of issues, in this case AIDS would be rational while still very thorough, rather than living in fear everyday that they are going to be infected.
The aids virus was a mysterious virus that spread to homosexuals, drug addicts and even heterosexuals. The outbreak caused a lot of scare and frustration to the people because they often wondered, “where did it come from?” or “how did this person become infected with this virus?” Activists had to convince citizens that not only homosexuals and drug addicts were being affected first, but soon heterosexuals would be next. The federal government spent money just to advertise “AIDS Doesn’t Discriminate” which created awareness for everyone of different backgrounds. The media gave very little to limited information on AIDS. No one knew much about it but only how people received it or how they think they contracted AIDS. TV stations who broadcasted news programs only wanted higher ratings which created a dramatic, scary program and often dishonest to viewers. The only time the government did something about AIDS was when it affected heterosexuals as well.
I believe how MSM handles this issue is how we react to major crises. They create a “panic” awareness for us and as viewers we react and become frighten. For example, the night of the blackout 5 years ago created chaos for us because of how we relied on electricity. The next day, everyone started to fill up their gas tanks and stocked up on nonperishable food! I think those who tried to fight against the media did not get their say on the issue of AIDS. They were never heard and never got the chance to clear up the truth on AIDS; therefore, the media is one-sided. There needs to be honesty between media and viewers because we should know the full truth and not the “half-truth.”
W1 C2 Homework - summary/response to Ch. 6
In chapter six of the best seller “Bias” the author Bernard Goldberg highlights on continuation of liberal bias in Main stream mass media through another hot topic –AIDS, one of the most terrible human tragedies. At the begining, the accent was given on the fact that it is a disease that spread through gay relationship only. Through the years welearnt that drugs addicted people who share their needles also get AIDS. But, in let 1900s. the liberal media decided to bring attention to the AIDS problem. In fact, the activists found their compassionate friends in the media to persuade America and MSM tried to convince us that it is not only gay and junkie’s problems. There was nothing wrong with this, but they way they went about it was deplorable. Since AIDS was primarily a gay issue, the media decided that they needed to turn it into a non- gay issue, in order to rally public support. They said AIDS might be transmitted through heterosexual contacts and looked for the heterosexuals who were infected, then exploited this on the news without telling their audience the another half of their stories like how did they get AIDS, saying that it was politically incorrect to ask such a question. They were able to scare the public into supporting billions of dollars in funding. In chapter 6, the author tries to show how the MSM tried to highlight the issue on behalf of gay activists to draw the attention of the American society and Government for more funding. The issue appeared on the heading of the leading liberal network channels and newspapers. According to the author, news executives and TV people are ready to go far for higher ratings. They intentionally falsified real data of the statistics and miss leaded the American. The MSM are ready to for anything for high rating- means more money.
The MSM is being influenced by activists of current hot social issues; represent them to the society, telling the audience only the half of the truth intentionally, to increase the rating of their own channel. Same like in Global Worming Issue, they used scary headings, half-truth stories, without presenting the opposite point of view, falsifying the fact and evidence to create psychological pressure on their audience and consequently on the Government for more funding. In order to do that, as the author mentions, the liberal MSM are more than willing to set aside their usual skepticism and go right along. They did their job successfully as they could create huge social resonance but the code of journalistic ethics was lost. The social responsibility of journalism, as a profession was buried under bias.
In this chapter the main topic the author has talked about is AIDS. AIDS, where it comes from and who are the victims of it. The target groups of AIDS are young gay men who share the needles and are highly engaged in sex. The victims also get this disease from blood transfusions. AIDS is growing in the heterosexual population and it is not just a gay disease. The federal government has put nearly 5 million dollars to help solve this increasing problem. People in America are scared because of increasing spread of AIDS worldwide. Media is telling people that AIDS is a general disease and anyone can get it. Michael Fumento has mentioned in his book, “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”, that the disease is only affected to people who are engaged in certain activities. No one supports his ideas and thoughts, people think Fumento is politically wrong. Fumento tells that heterosexual do get AIDS, but only if they share needles and clotting factor. The government is misleading public on the degree of the AIDS disease. News is not truth about AIDS because the evidence was far apart from their real world counterparts. Even though AIDS has civil right just like cancer and heart disease, it is considered uncivil to ask someone “How did you get it?” Jucqueline Adams tells a story that teenagers who were engaged in AIDS were mainly because of unprotected sex. Media is reporting to the public stories of people who had AIDS and died from it without knowing the truth behind it. African united nation says that by 2021, 150 million people will have been affected by HIV worldwide. There is no evidence that the AIDS is ping-ponging through the heterosexual population. The data has indicated that AIDS in heterosexual population is very small.
I totally agree with the author, the fact that people are not been told with the reality. No now is willing to support Fumento’s ideas and thoughts. I think Fumento is absolutely right that anyone can get AIDS, but it depends on the situation. Fumento does not just focus on the heterosexual population in general, but he tries to prove his point by facts and truth. I think the media is a major role player in our life and if they lead us to the wrong path, how are we able to know the truth and reality. Public think that it is politically incorrect to ask someone how they got AIDS well if do not ask them how we can stop ourselves from getting the same disease as they have or had. Why fear the public if you can guide them in a proper direction and solve a problem easily. The media wants to make money, but I do not think that misleading large group of people in a wrong way will take that media to their desired future goals.
The main point of this chapter is that mainstream news media trades on the AIDS issue as their business. First of all, MSM do not care about gay men and junkies are dying from AIDS virus or other reasons because this is not a big issue in America. However MSM diverts this issue to public. For example U.S News & World Report said, “The disease of them is suddenly the disease of us” they can inflame public opinion. Second, they stimulate public with strong issue such as heterosexuals and AIDS without evidence. They tell stories without behind stories that poor black women are contracting HIV after having relationship with man or Teen ager girl who has AIDS is infected through unprotected sex with man. Nobody knows about behind story but it is interesting enough to affect to the public. Third, they are concerning about their program rating. They concentrate on selling their TV shows, newspapers or magazines with broadcasting or publishing superficial information about AIDS. They are making general AIDS stories which can be happened to anyone and gives fears to audiences. Finally they can approach their goal “Epidemic Of Fears” which is related on their ratings and money.
I agree with Bernard Goldberg’s opinion. I have experienced about “AIDS Epidemic of Fear” from media. When I was teenager, I had no education on AIDS, how it can be spread or transmitted. One morning I read newspaper talking about AIDS victims have been increasing since 1990. However they only showed how the number grew faster. Indeed they did not mention about how victims got AIDS and who can be exposed from AIDS virus. They gave notable numbers which can make people scared instead of giving fair information and evidence. In my opinion, MSM improperly uses social issues such as AIDS, terrorism and global warming in order to inflame public opinion as well as for their business. I think using scare tactic would catch people’s attention; however both side of opinions or truth should be accompanied instead of denying fair information, behind stories and right evidences.
Summary: This chapter is talking about how the media dealing with AIDS. The media want to catch the audiences’ attention, so they exaggerate the news base on the fact there are heterosexual AIDS victims. On the other hand media couldn’t expose the truth is because of it’s a really sensitive topic which couldn’t ask “hostility” questions during a TV show and most people don’t want to tell the truth about it. Also AIDS is world well know disease so the government pays lots of attention on it, somehow it reaches to an politically issue which the book called “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS” are rarely can be sold in stores, because of the book reveals the truth behind it. However for media they want to make money out of those TV shows, so somehow they made main purpose on making high ratings instead of showing the truth, but those are caused by the AIDS victims who are not willing to tell the truth in front of the media.
In my opinion, the reason why media handle it to make everyone gets so scared is because for media their business is making money, they don’t care about the fact. What they do care about is the rating and money. So if media can catch people’s attention then they’ve made their goal already. The fact they only reveal one side point of view is because that side can catch more people’s attention. On the other hand not because media don’t want to exposes the truth, but it’s really hard to find someone who involved to that issue and willing to tell the truth, just like Randy Shilts not that many people can make it. Also the government somehow has the power control over the media, it’s hard to against any government or political view.
Bernard Goldberg’s ‘Epidemic of Fear’ is an interesting chapter in his book BIAS. The main point of this chapter is about ‘AIDS’ and what are the possible reasons of spreading this virus in the world. The author sensibly described the actual reason of the main topic with a huge number of real stories and evidences. He tried to explain the bias of the main stream media and what the media were telling us about AIDS. This virus is spreading by homosexuals and by using the same needles to shot drugs mainly. But, news media exposes only that it is transmitted by heterosexual relationships. Media is hiding the truth and they are creating enormous fear in every person of the world by those advertising campaigns. They are campaigning that only one group of people is in threat, but what about other group? In addition, the author represents an interview of ‘Randy Shilts’ in this chapter, which signifies the truth about AIDS and how the media is playing for getting their ratings and popularity.
I fully agree with the author because media is not publishing the major truth. They are creating fake awareness in public’s mind about AIDS and hiding one part of the story always. By reading this chapter, for the first time I knew that homosexual relationship is one of the reason to decease AIDS. Yes, I think the presentation of this AIDS topic and global warming is related, because MSM constantly avoiding the other side of the news and persuading people to believe that news.
The main point of this chapter is that the media doesn't provide enough information about AIDS but just some parts of them by intent. Even though, in reality, lots of people who's infected by AIDS are gays (at least had sex with other man), IV drug users, hemophiliacs, or getting HIV through a blood transfusion, the media doesn't mention about them that much. Instead, the media focuses on a few cases such as white, high-level educated, and heterosexual but got AIDS. The reason why the media highlights them is mainly because of a rating or to make people concentrate for it more. Of course that’s not the only reason to do so, they also concern it seriously, but it’s undeniable that they can make the rating higher by using a certain point of view as their main target is middle-class, white, college-level educated heterosexual people.
I agree with the author because the media has to be objective and let people know the truth, not just part of it. Some people believe what the media says is the truth, especially when they're not professional or have no background knowledge about the topic. When I was young, I totally believed in the media and all the things from that is the truth. But now.. not anymore, especially after I read this. I agree with that there's also possibility to get infected AIDS even for heterosexual, high-level educated and middle class people, so it's good to let them know about that, but it's more important to give the whole information; that's just a few cases and there's some other factors which is seriously dangerous.
Chapter 6 is about AIDS-Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,it is an article on how activist use the disease to get attention from the people.AIDS was used by activist as an issue to scare America "The goal was simple:scare the hell out of straight America-then they would have to pay attention"(Goldberg 82).The activist wants to bring about attention to the American people that AIDS is real and affects all kinds of people;Gays,women,children and heterosexuals.The media on the otherhand is exploiting the situation by presenting half truths to boost rating and thus make money even at the expense of hiding the truth of how people really got AIDS, although media in a way has contributed towards raising awareness of AIDS on the American people but it has failed to provide facts that could have help alleviate or pacified the fear of the people.Network TV stories talk about epidemic in 1992 but the news from the press and TV didn't jibe with reality(87).Based on the study from the Centers for Media and Public Affairs,it concluded that "TV's portrait of AIDS victims has little in common with real life",the people on TV use only the information provided in the story,example;During the period studied, 6 percent of the people with AIDS shown on the evening news were gay men.But in real life 58 percent were gay men (87).The media wasn't providing all the facts and has added insult to injury to the fear of the people,the media all tell's about different classes of people getting AIDS but they don't ask these people how they got AIDS in the first place.This article tell us that sometime at the height of the AIDS crisis was the dark age of media,where rating and money was put above factual interest and whole truth reporting.
I agree with Bernard Goldberg when he wrote this Epidemic of Fear, Chapter 6 of the book BIAS to expose how news companies and reporters use issues to attract viewers even at the expense of twisting or manipulating the truth in order to get higher rating and thus making money.His article is saying that sometimes you shouldn't believe right away what you hear or read in the radio or newspaper and if the issue really interest you then you should do more research from reliable sources that are not bias,like for this article the Centers for Disease Control,on the other hand this article is also for the journalist,news and television companies,that they should present both sides of the issues,be professional and truthful because people are getting smarter and there is a "market for a network that chooses to deliver a truthful and unbiased account of the day's event"(Goldberg 237). Media has reported how heterosexual people get AIDS but they don't want to ask the person how they got AIDS because it's not compassionate to ask such questions or reports about teenagers getting AIDS and "By leaving out the crucial fact that almost all of these teenage AIDS cases involve homosexual sex or IV drugs or tainted blood,we are left with the impression that straight,middle-class heterosexual teens are being infected with HIV"(90).The reports of the media,although half truth has become the whole truth and has fuelled fear and lead to unjustified conclusion that AIDS affects everyone.News companies tolerated if not supported these practices of media "infotainment"(98)because producers and executives realized that such news makes them money,"Sure they would want quality,in theory.But they wanted ratings and money,in fact."(99).
I hope that the media should understand that they should be professional,that the burden of presenting both sides of whatever issues is their responsibility and to present facts as accurate and as complete as possible, it is their moral and social responsibility to themselves and to the public.
Like the global warming is causing the epidemic of fear, AIDS also cause the big storm in human
beings. Basically there is a fight regarding AIDS, one group says the AIDS is originally from heterosexual, the other group says the AIDS is originally from homosexual. Well, homosexual is the major group cause the AIDS. HIV which is the major element in AIDS spread through blood and semen, especially among gay men’s sex and junkies based on the scientists’ discovery. Apparently the truth is AIDS spread through homosexual. But the media misleads the public; they are saying that “ no one is safe” in the world, and try to hide the truth. For example, the media refuse to sell The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS in the bookstore because of some ‘editorial reasons’. The media try to attract everyone’s attention, and then they said everyone has the responsibility for causing the AIDS. It scares people, and then makes people try to spend the unnecessary time and money on the media.
I personally in favour of the Arthur’s opinion, the public do not need to be panic. The msm is affected by some activists, they say something extremely to attract people’s attention. Anyway they do not present the whole truth. They have emotion feelings in their opinion. What we the public should believe in something with scientific evidence.
In my opinion, the main point of the chapter is about the media blowing the AIDS story out of proportion to get good television/ ratings by scaring straight Americans into believing heterosexual was happening, not just in the gay community. The media scared the public through news stories with terrifying titles and special TV programs. Three pieces of evidence that support the point are: 1. the journalists didn't just want ratings; with the AIDS crisis they tried showing that they cared. They showed this by saying it's everyone's disease, that it was equal and not just a gay disease. 2. Goldberg believed that, the TV producer Andrew Heyward purposely put on a program "48 hours" to scare the public by telling lies about AIDS, in order to get high ratings. 3. the activists had told the media to spread the news about AIDS because they knew straight Americans didn't care. The media did take on the crisis, but they decided that the heterosexual AIDS story was better.
After reading the chapter, I feel both ways, I agree with what the AIDS activists did to get the government to think about the problem, to help find a cure. I think during that time gays weren't as accepted as it is now, so through the media was the only choice. I disagree with how the media handled the whole situation, with the lies, terror, and pretending to care; it seems to me they were in it for the money and ratings. I find that in both the global warming and the AIDS crisis, the Msm seems to be presenting a story that is making people worry and be in fear. The Msm is one sided because they want to make the public pay attention to them, so the best way to do that is to make the story stand out.
The main point is this chapter is that the media are making money from untruth, wrong, and attractive information about AIDS. Most people know AIDS which is one of most terrible disease. According to the media, AIDS spreads from gay and junkies who shot drugs into their veins and shared needles. Also, the media presented that AIDS can get from heterosexuals who are having sex with junkies. The media sometimes make bigger and attractive issue like the book “Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. This fact made fear and panic to the society. The media are making money thought blowing AIDS epidemic out of proportion and increase program rating instead of giving the truth.
I agree with the author that the media do not always present information. I think every opinion, and information is own bias in. Especially, the media blow all news and try to making money as much as possible. However, the media should broadcast both side information which are positive and negative as much as possible because some people who do not interest in the information just believe what they hear, see, and read. The media should not use for making money and it is not business.
summary AIDS is a growing threat from gay men, junkies with "dirty needle" to the heterosexual population. However, the media didn't present them correctly, seriously and deeply for the public. Media didn't boot circulation and exactly rating of the AIDS for the public. In fact, media have manipulated politically. Furthermore, media spread the myth of heterosexual AIDS, and scared the public in order to get government to pay attention, being more compassionate, but it lost its credibility. At last, the media is not a "person" as a watch dog for the public. correspondent presents the news and issue problems like heterosexual AIDS ravaging the city in order to make more money.
I agree with Goldberg. as a "watch dog", media has lost its function. Fumento writes "the government has been misleading the public on the extent of the AIDS epidemic. Media present news, which completely depends news value. Why wasn't the news of the heterosexual AIDS passed along to America at first? Why did it spread to all America? the reason that the heterosexual AIDS issue is not a value. The media is sort of manipulated politically. The public can't see the truth like over exaggerating or careless. The media always
presents one side. sometimes it will make the public go the wrong way or wrong side. Opposite side obviously is neglected
Does your partner have AIDS? Are your friends infected? Am I infected with AIDS? What are we suppose to do to protect ourselves? We all ask these questions, we talk about them, we discuss about them as we all know that it AIDS is one of the most deadly, incurable and mysterious disease in today’s society. Year after year, AIDS have been spreading from originally young gay men, junkies and drug addicts to heterosexual. And now it is like everywhere; you can see how as years progresses, AIDS are increasing rapidly among us all. The usage of the needles, drugs and sharing of it, is just the worst to start off with. It is so unhealthy and unsanitary. Another point that I think Mr. Goldberg is trying to emphasis is how the media is using this topic to make money and increase in their rating. After all, they are the media and most of us believe in what they broadcast. The media always tend to either exaggerate and makes small story big just to get the excitement and to scare the hell out of people or just don’t mention the truth at all. Yes, of course AIDS is a scary thing but just don’t over do it just like Randy Shilts said AIDS was not “the killer next door.” For instant, on page 87, BIAS, “On TV, 16 % were blacks and Hispanics. But in real life 46% were black and Hispanic”. The result different that was reported was huge. If I may say, the media is having their own disease, do not know if it is a good one or a bad one.
I totally agree with Mr. Goldberg. The media is doing a lousy job in presenting any information that is important to the public. Anything that is a “must know” situation should be fully disclosed from both sides of the argument. In this chapter, you can see how the media is swinging to one side of the point again just as in the issue with Global warming. Only one side is heard at all times. I mean, if you are to tell someone a fact, then say it all out and stop hiding the truth. Covering parts of the information or not saying much is not what the media should be doing. They should be disclosing all information to the reader’s best interest, in other words, everything we need to know, everything there is to know and everything we should know. In continuation with this trend, after 10 years or even less, people will stop relying and believing in whatever they will be broadcasting. It is just garbage and trash.
Sudden outbreak of AIDS equals great news story equals great opportunity for MSM to grab ratings equals to misleading news reports plus over exaggerations equals to large amount of anticipated ratings equals to large profits for MSM. The first victims of AIDS were gay couples having unprotected anal sex, drug junkies sharing dirty needles, and hemophiliacs that needed blood transfusions. The AIDS activists saw this as an opportunity to “scare the hell out of straight America” to grab the public’s attention to find a cure for AIDS and MSM saw this as a pot of gold. Clearly, the only way that heterosexuals can catch HIV is to have blood contact with anyone that is already infected. For example: unprotected sex, sharing dirty needles or blood transfusions. As you can see, the majority of America was not in any real danger but only the minorities. However, the MSM over exaggerated the situation with news reports and stories such as: “No One Is Safe Anymore”, “Cases Rising Fastest Among Heterosexuals” – U.S. News &World Report, and many more. Many of these news reports and stories left out the vital facts. The MSM never bothered to ask “How did you get it?” because it was “politically incorrect” nor did they dig deeper into the story when in fact many of the people infected with AIDS were either gay couples, drug junkies, or blacks and Hispanic. According to the information from the Centers for Disease Control compared to the media, “6 % people with AIDS shown on evening news were gay men, but in real life, 58 % were gay men. On TV, 16 % were blacks and Hispanics, in real life were 46 %. On TV, 2 % AIDS sufferers were drug users, and in real life were 23 %.” Ultimately, you can see the media exaggerate and manipulated the stories to rake in all the ratings and money.
AIDS is a serious issue, and we all should be aware of it. In this situation I stand in the middle. Often readers read one side and the chances of standing on that side is high. And when the readers get to know the other side, it will be often hard for them to make up their minds. In this case, I don’t know to either side with the MSM or with Mr. Goldberg. Both sides’ argument makes on the surface and they have their own facts. Sure AIDS need to be recognized and there is a need to find a cure, but the MSM did not have to explode it out to the public in this proportion by saying no one is safe. However, after reading Bias, it will slant me towards Mr. Goldberg’s side. This case here is almost the same thing as the global warming issue. The MSM in both cases did not fairly disclose both sides of the story and it is very one sided. In both cases, the MSM seemed always favoured the side which gave them the advantages (ratings and profit).
The main idea of this chapter is that the media is not stating the truth behind the real victim of AIDS. The media is posting false information on the facts of the origin of AIDS and trying to grab the attention of the majority of the people who have a much smaller risk of catching AIDS just to get ratings. The media is also trying to hide facts and information of victims who were infected by AIDS, saying they are just normal people like everyone else and he/she had sex with another normal individual of the opposite sex. They would not reveal the facts that the victim had sex with an IV drug user or the victim him/herself was a drug user. Mainly, Bernard Goldberg, in this chapter, is trying the say that the media will hide truths and give misleading facts to grab the public’s attention for higher ratings to gain more profit.
I agree with the author. The media does not give us the key facts that we should all know. The media, who are suppose to be providing people with information and facts on things, has turned into a big business on which its main focus now is probably to alter facts to grab more of peoples attention for ratings and profit.
After reading chapter 6, it seems as if though that media is really making AIDS way bigger then what it really is. It is a serious disease but the media made it more then what they should have made it. They made heterosexuals feel uncomfortable. They made drug users seem so useless, because if they had AIDS it was a problem they had to deal with. Media made books, television shows that were interviewing people that should have not happened. These people had rights, and should have kept quiet; they shouldn't have expressed themselves so much with media like they did. Fumento should have no made that book; half the bookstores didn't even publish it because of how direct it was to heterosexuals. "The Killer Next Door" was a bad idea, if was a disease that the government should have handled and made a cure for, not made a social event and make a daytime show out of it.
Personally I agree with what Mr. Goldberg was telling us, media was making this so big in a way they shouldn't have. Yes, the disease should have been put out there to warn people, but not scare them. Once again I think the media did a bad job because scaring people was not the way to bring out such a disease to the public. I think this does relate to the global warming aspect, because we are still being warned about global warming, you can tell some people are actually starting to worry about it. Global warming should have more explained to the public and not just thrown out there are people. Aids should have been taken seriously; doctors should have done interviews to tell people what the effects are, not people off the street who are telling us their experience. We really need to look behind the media, because the information they give us, we can't trust in them 100 percent.
In chapter 6 of Bias titled “Epidemic of fear” Goldberg discusses the reporting of Aids. His main point is that Aids activists wanted to scare America to believing that Aids was everyone’s problem, in order to keep their attention and that the media went along with it strictly for the ratings. One of his key points was that if people knew that gay people and drug users were in the biggest danger of getting the disease then America wouldn’t have paid any attention to the story. Another point was that the statics used were faulty, such that the public was lead to believe that a larger # of the Aids populations was due to heterosexual activity, not accounting for the fact that these people could be bisexual, or having sex with drug users. Also he stated that the media is known to put out stories in their best interest (ratings) after it was found that news was a money making business. This is why the msm went along with the story that got the higher ratings, which was that AIDS was everyone’s disease.
I agree with Goldberg, that the media attempts to scare people in order to get a wanted outcome and that they are more about ratings then actually telling a unbiased story. I am still undecided as to whether Aids was strictly a problem for homosexual and drug users. But I do believe that the media made it out to be a bigger problem than it really was, and hide the truth for the general public. Even so, if the msm reported the Aids ‘epidemic” as Goldberg would have wanted, where they single out certain groups, that would be discriminating and even cause more discrimination towards gays, and less help for drug users. People with Aids would have been shunned even more than they had been, since they would have another stereotype to deal wit (All homosexuals have Aids), which at one point might have been the case, but didd down due to the reports from the msm.
In chapter 6 “epidemic of fear” by Goldberg. Goldberg is basically saying that the mass media has always been biased in reporting different, important issues in history of example AIDS. In beginning when AIDS epidemic was discovered, the media portrayed it as a virus that is mainly found in gay men and junkies who take drug shots though dirty needles. Emphasizing on gays to create fear among straight American men, to get attention. Later on finding out that main street Americans did not care about junkies who died every day of drugs and gays. Next heterosexuals were put into the same picture to pose fear in main street Americans by using phrases like “the diseases of them is suddenly become diseases of us”. Also including made up stats and TV celebrities to prove their point. All this was done to get millions of dollars of funding. In my view I agree with Goldberg, all the important issues were always given one side and never put refuting arguments on the table so that people can have their own opinion.
The article of chapter 6 of bias “Epidemic of Fear” mainly talks about main stream media in U.S helped spread the epidemic of fear. They scared the public that AIDS was not just a gays or junkies’ disease but could be infected between heterosexual who are in low-risk group in order to get high rating, attract government and the public’s attention and show their compassion. First the author give the data shows that the AIDS victims in TV have little common with real life. For example, on TV 6 percent of AIDS victims are gays. However, 58 percent are gay men in real life. The author gives another example. New York Times reported on July 3,2001 that Poor rural southern women were contracting HIV by unprotected heterosexual sex. The Fact is rural south black women contracted HIV because they had high-risk sex, including having sex with men who drugs other than heterosexual sex. In the end, the author critisez the CBC’s program “The Killer Next Door”. In the program, the AIDS victims talked about they contracted AIDS due to unprotected sex. But, they never gave detail about they had sex with IV drug user or not.
After I read chapter 6 of “BIAS”, I think the main stream media in U.S fail to keep balance on reporting some event such as global warming, AIDS. The responsibility and obligation of a qualified media is informing the public information without any bias or their points of view. Nevertheless, they grossly exaggerate and spread out the fear of AIDS, telling the public that AIDS can be contracted by heterosexual sex without any evidence. Likewise, although there is no evidence shows that global warming is caused by co2 the main stream media have described it as a disaster. It result in changing people’s lifestyle. I think the main steam media don’t make neutral comment on these issue because they want the every audience concern these issue. They can get high rating by doing this. Additionally, they can favor the government by having a same point of view of government. They win money and concern by doing this. However, as the author of BIAS said, they lost credibility.
In chapter 6 "Epidemic of Fear," is based on the media spreading the fear of AIDS of homosexual men to the straight community. The media rarely covers any story fully truthfully for they say what they feel will give them ratings. They will talk about something for the simple purpose of having a topic for their show no matter how much they really know about it. On Television the media said,"16% were Blacks and Hispanics, but in real life 46%." From the media putting the public through panic it built more power for an easy cash grab. "The goal was simple: scare the hell out of Straight America- then they would have to pay attention," although many died from drug addiction the media would exploit the fact that AIDS was a heavier issue. Simply put, the media provides the public with half truths just to get a story out, just to get more money.
In my opinion, I completely agree with the author Bernard Goldberg. The media will say what they want, and they know exactly what to say to get the attention of society. The media seriously needs to start putting both sides to stories out, even the whole argument with the global warming issue "What actually causes global warming?" The media and their corrupt ways will get them money, but will do more damage to society in the long run.
In chapter 6 of Bias, the main point that Goldberg was trying to make was that the AIDS epidemic is blown way out of proportion by the media. One of his main arguments supporting this was that the actual statistics and facts do not suggest that so many of us are or will be affected by AIDS, and that the real numbers regarding this issue does not warrant the panic that we are currently facing. Anther argument that Goldberg makes is that the media will almost do anything for ratings, and the best way to get ratings is to scare people into thinking that they too are affected by the story. The media did this by relating straight sex to death. The third and equally as interesting point that Goldberg makes is how activists need the media to make a big deal out of AIDS so they can get the support they want. The activists get attention, the media presents their story, and while the media is getting the ratings and they money that they are looking for, at the same time they are loosing their credibility as a source of factual information.
I completely agree with the ideas presented in Chapter 6. As Goldberg mentioned, the media says that AIDS is the “killer next door”, and yet he barely knows anyone who has it. I don’t know anyone who has it, my friends and family don’t know anyone who has AIDS, so why is it such a big deal? Why do normal middle class people have to worry so much about something that doesn’t and may not ever affect them at all? I feel the same about the MSM on this issue as I do on any issue that they present. It’s always blown out of proportion, its always half truths, and I will never believe what I hear on TV unless I’ve done my own research and I know what they are saying is true. MSM made me believe that the global warming issue is an epidemic (in till I took this class of course), and it was presented in the same way, it was one sided. I know that the reporters and journalists (in most cases) just present what they think will get ratings. I think the media is always one sided because if they did argue both sides, they would loose their credibility in the eyes of the general public. Viewers may say, “the news doesn’t even know what the truth is, so why should we even listen to them at all”. My opinion is still that the media is all about ratings.
summary:
This chapter is about gays and junkies having and spreading AIDS and the media is broadcasting as this can be given to anyone which caused panic for everyone. The media went all out and put fear into everyone that AIDs can be given to heterosexuals.
I believe the media should tell both sides to the story. We need the media to inform us of events happening in the world. How else would we know?? This chapter the media blew the AIDS epic out and did not inform views of both sides, which was wrong. However, we as people have to form our own opinion and not always agree with the media. I strongly believe the government has a lot of control over the media.
The article of chapter 6 of Bias “Epidemic of Fear” talks about different issues in spreading AIDS all around. Goldberg says that most of the victims are gay men, because gay people take on high risk anal sex it causes blood transfusions. In addition, most of the junkies share their same dirty needles also a factor of high risk. The main reason for increased AIDS is due to unprotected sex. According to the book it is believed that in 1999 approximately 712 000 people have been affected by the AIDS. Also the author Goldberg has mentioned in the reading that HIV victims should be alerted through the media to prevent people from sufferings. But also Goldberg says that media should be giving the truth about this AIDS or HIV issue and not giving false information
In my opinion, I agree with the author Goldberg that Medias have to take actions in preventing AIDS around the world by giving the people warnings. And the Medias should provide the accurate story from both sides and not just from one side. They shouldn’t be just giving information to have a negative perspective on the other side.
Summary=> The chapter six of the book "BIAS" talks about AIDS that took place in America in 1980's and 90's and how it was presented by the media.
The author's goal is to let people know how the media treat the issue of AIDS and and how much they offer misleading information to the public. The author uses some examples to prove his point. Media expresses the AIDS disease as everyone's disease; as the next door killer. The reporter do not ask the interviewee about how did he/she got AIDS. The media just presents they are ordinary Americans who have a college degree, white, middle- class and so on. Media's first goal is for high ratings by attracting viewers not transmitting the correct and exact information. However,the author proves that most of the AIDS victims are gay,prostitutes,IV users or people who had relationship with already HIV infected.
Opinion=> I have believed that the true information comes from the media- newspaper, TV and radio; however, after I read this book, I was a little bit of shocked and thought about how much I read newspapers and listened TV without critical thinking. Also, I reminded one of my high-school teachers who was teaching math and said to students often how much newspaper provides wrong information and falsify the true stories and sometimes resent during the middle of class. Media should provide the true story and right information to the public and I think those are the role of the media. However, on the other view, I a little bit understand why they cannot say the real AIDS news directly to the public- the pressure from senior politicians, profits and so on. From misleading information, the viewers can be more careful about affecting AIDS and behaving more carefully. It is good. However, anyway, the reason cannot be for ratings.
Post a Comment