I was immediately enthralled with the description of the controversy over subliminal advertising. Rodman describes the fear “that advertisers were using their knowledge of Freudian and behavioral psychology to affect the consumer unconscious mind.” (434) this idea was later proved a hoax but the fears were real. This fear really categorizes the mood of the world at that time. The 1950’s were ripe with paranoid Rodman writes that it is due to the fears of communism. One of the most interesting morsels of the paranoia surrounding subliminal advertising was the claim made by James Vicaray an unemployed market researcher. He inserted singly frames into movies saying things like “eat popcorn” and “Drink Coke” he claimed the messages were the cause in a boost of sales. This was later proved false. I think a better idea to boost drink sales at movies would be to insert a video of a stream on the screen allow people to get a visual and think about how thirsty they are. People do not like the idea of being controlled especially if we do not know we are being controlled. Humans are constantly consciously avoiding submissiveness. Humans always try to be their own person and strive to make their own decision. Humans are rational and will only respond to conscience activity, we need to be able to rationalize our decisions.
Another interesting bit of class and the readings was about PR and the responses of the various companies. Particularly Tylenol and Exxon, these cases showed the importance of a forward looking and overall importance of a strong PR team. The response of Exxon to the oil spill was very interesting. One would assume and has learned in childhood that it is always better to fess up to a mistake and make sure to take care of it. Apparently Exxon did not remember their childhood lessons. Tylenol who fared much better due to their vigorous campaign following the poisonings, Tylenol spared no expense and kept a loyal consumer base.

As I read Chapter 11 in Rodman I came across a section concerning media bias in covering politics. Political bias in the media is an interesting topic. Each side of the political spectrum has their own organizations which measures the amount of political bias in the news media. Rodman pokes a little bit of fun at these organizations citing that the “anti-Republican AIM claims for example that 80 to 90 percent of mainstream media consistently vote for democrats . . . while liberal organizations such as FAIR say that media often have a conservative bias.” (376-77) these comments lead to a question posed in the text by Rodman “should reporters give up political involvement, including party registration and voting?’

The idea of having journalist drop political ties in the name of journalism is the wrong way to approach the problem of media bias. In the Rodman chapters he not only talks about blatant political bias but also what is known as the “Creeping Bias” (379). This bias is a “subtle form of slanting that manifests itself in understated ways such as placement of stories, the choice of photos, and the captions that go with them.” (379) Rodman answers his own question that eliminating journalist’s political ties will not stop media bias. There is a natural bias everyone has towards political issues erasing their political ties will only leave educated voices out of the voting and political process.

The invention of television has swept through the annals of culture taking no prisoners. Perhaps the most apparent effect of television is the effect on family life. As Rodman says “The biggest changes were occurring in American society, especially in term of family life.” (288) I am an opponent of the saturation that has occurred between culture and the television. As Rodman says television did bring families together but the time they spent together was not in conversation. Families were simply coming together to watch their favorite prime time programs they were not coming together to do “family bonding”. Television is perhaps the most inutile of the new mass media. Unlike internet or cell phones television is a relic of the new media. Television only allows for one way communication with the public.

The nature of the programming on television is also on the whole and insult to good taste. Although television does have many educational channels with quality programming such as public television, History channel, and the discovery channel. There are many networks which run distasteful demining programs. The new wave of reality television floods our televisions with random people humiliating themselves. Television should no longer be taken seriously and only watched for comedic purposes.

Week three response

As an avid fan of music and occasional radio listener I was delighted to read about the payola system which I had long ago heard about but was never fully satisfied. Payola as described by Rodman in chapter 8 states "record promoters began to pay Djs to play certain records, the practice became known as payola." I was actually surprised that the practice of payola was such a major scandal. “When the practice became public knowledge, a major scandal ensued. Many Djs were fired . . . congressional hearings were held, and the communications act of 1934 was amended to make the practice illegal.” The act of a Dj getting played to promote and play a song is no different than a Dj being paid to promote any other product or service on air. I also do not see a difference between payola and every second on MTV the so called viewer’s choice is really Viacom’s choice. Also what is the difference between a song in an advertisement and payola? In my opinion all of these practices are equally detrimental to the music industry. Any real music aficionado does not rely on television or radio to listen to music. What the act of 1934 did was simply keep the promotion money higher up in the conglomeration. After the act Djs were no longer getting money to promote the songs but their program directors were. The real travesty in the radio industry is not payola but the monopoly of the radio industry. The FCC needed to put restrictions on the size of radio conglomerates. In any age what is played on the radio, printed, or televised should be looked at with suspicion. The only things thought to be worth playing or printing are those things that further ones economic cause.

Chapters 3-4 response

In Chapter 3 Rodman discusses controversies of book censorship. I am appalled at each and every act of censorship by the "government or any quasi-governmental agencies such as public schools and libraries" is a terrible infraction against our freedoms. A question raised is why these books are censored. Rodman says that books are banned because of sexual lifestyles, drugs, the occult, suicide, and profane language these are everyday issues people struggle with. Books are a way for people to learn about other cultures and other aspects of life books dealing with the tough issues should be welcomed. For example the book Huckleberry Finn is almost always one of the top banned books because of its use of racial slang. The novel was written using local vernacular and gives the reader a negative portrait of slavery and racism. This example shows the blindness of the censors. A satirical look at the racist culture of the south should not be banned because of factual uses of racial slang.

Another issue discussed by Rodman is the lack of diversity in the news room. The lack of diversity in the newsroom has caused riots and the alienation of minority groups from society. I tend to disagree with Rodman concerning the problem. I believe the problem does not solely lie in lack of minorities physically working in the newsroom. I believe a majority of the blame should be placedon the nature of the business. The goal of modern media is too make money by selling lots of newspapers. This means catering to what is popular at the time. It is in papers best interest to ignore unpopular people and news topics. This phenomenonis perpetuated by media consumers who only wish to read about issues and people they support.