Never Good Enough

Albert R. Hunt of Business Week wrote about the charges that President Obama made towards former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Mr. Bush said that Obama "is the most liberal president" in modern times pushing "an agenda that really is foreign to mainstream America." Many Republicans feel like the current president has "socialist" agendas. Not only is Obama being criticized on the right wing but also by his fellow left wingers who say that he has "failed to keep his campaign commitments." Hunt says that "ideology isn't the ideal prism to evaluate the Obama presidency." Going into detail about the many promises that the president made in order to be elected, both the left and right (and the people of this country) all have "a bone to pick" and believe that their ideas are so much better than what is being done.

"Journalists find themselves precisely where where they want to be: in the middle. This middle ground serves as a haven for reporters, criticism comes from both sides, then the news must not be ideological at all. Attacks from both sides make the center a defensible place" (Croteau & Hoynes, 169). Mr. Hunt has perfectly placed himself in the situation just quoted. He describes how the Republicans and Democrats both have issues with administration. I also found it funny how Mr. Hunt said, "ideology isn't the ideal prism to evaluate the Obama presidency." Though the definition of the term "ideology" is vague, he never attempts to establish the definition. Croteau and Hoynes even said that "we need to be careful to specify what we mean by the term" (159). Being called "ideological" could be a insult by calling someone out on saying and doing contradicting things to one's beliefs, it could also be defined simply as a set of beliefs.

Though I do not particularly care for Obama's plans, I do feel sorry for him in a sense. It's hard trying to please everyone; it's just not going to happen. People are always going to say you could do this better or change this. It's easy to say and think something but different when you're trying to do it. There's only so much you can do in four years and he hasn't been in office that long; give him time. I find it silly that people are attacking his ideology because he hasn't had time to totally go through all the motions of his various agendas.

Kids seem to like Movies more than Food

I know, you might be thinking, “What does kids liking movies more then food have to do with media?” Well, if you’re the largest children network nickelodeon, it has a lot to do with media. Recently, I came across an article on www.adage.com that said that in 2009, food was replaced by movies as the second largest marketing category . (No surprise that toys were number one) The article said that the success that Hollywood had last year had a direct impact on advertisers. Nickelodeon is expecting the same results for 2010, especially with the release of a new Happy Potter movie and a movie based on nickelodeon’s own TV show, “Avatar the Last Airbender.” Though food moved down to the third highest marketing category, nickelodeon says that; with brands such as Kellogg and General Mills making new, healthier foods, advertisers should have fun with these new products, which they are hoping will lead to better numbers than those of 2009.

Ok, so for people who don’t know by now, television is basically run by advertisement. If it weren’t for advertisement, there would be no TV. David Crouteau and William Hoynes spend a lot of time in their book, “Media Society” explaining just how important advertisement is to TV. They explain how the main reason for TV is for companies to make money. This is why commercials are so important and the reason why you will NEVER have 100% commercial or advertisement free TV. We have TV shows so that during the commercial break, many companies can advertise their product so that the audience will eventually buy their product. This why so many shows end up getting canceled. If no one watches them, that means that no one is watching the commercials, and companies loose money. TV producers use what Croteau and Hoynes call Logic of Safety. This is basically saying that Companies try to minimize the risks of loosing money on programs. Companies realize that a show very rarely is going to start out with very high ratings, so they try to avoid sows that are going to be definite failures. This included shows that may cause controversy. Croteau and Hoynes also talk about narrowcasting, which is when an business puts there commercial during TV shows that target a selected audience.

An example of this is how nearly all of the commercials shown on nickelodeon are targeted toward kids. Movies may be the second largest marketing category, but each movie will not have a rating over PG-13. This is due to narrowcasting.

I remember being a little kid and watching commercials on nickelodeon and after the commercial would go off, I would always want my parents to go out and buy what I just saw. The items on my Christmas list were all things I had seen during a commercial. This is TV working at its best. They had interesting shows that I enjoyed watching, and commercials that had products that me, as a young child, would want. Nickelodeon is the #1 children network, and the commercials shown during their TV shows will be seem by millions of kids everyday. Toy companies, movies, and food companies are bound to make a lot of money if they advertise to kids on Nickelodeon, and that’s pretty much why TV exists in the first place; so that companies can make a lot of money!

Link:

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=142952

David S.

London is treating technology addicts

Do you ever want to just get away? Just escape all the stress in your life? 

Well, some people relax by, and enjoy, immersing themselves in social networking sites or video games. Personally, I don't think this is out of the ordinary, but apparently it can get out of hand. Only recently has an "obsession" with technology or social media turned to talk of addiction because, as with other forms of addiction, when tech addicts are deprived they become, "chronically agitated and irritable," according to Doctor Richard Graham in an article from BBC News. 

You may think, Wait I minute, I do that, or, My boyfriend does get upset when I interrupt him while he is playing video games, does that mean we are addicted? No, probably not, but if you are really curious...right click here to take Capio Nightingale Hospital's technology test, to find out. However, I think the quiz really is more a reminder (because a quiz cannot truly diagnose someone in my opinion) of how overwhelmed we are by media and how sometimes we may place it too high on the priority list.

The article explains that treatment for the addicts is held for inpatients at the Capio Hospital; it involves a three step process of delving into the patients issues with face-to-face relations, next they are encouraged to switch off technology, and finally they engage in exercise/activities with friends or family. You see the problem with tech addicts is not that the merely become irritable,but that their relationships many times take a toll. As Dr. Graham mentions, "The preoccupation with accessing sites and responding to messages is so compelling that it gets prioritized...it can impact on other areas of life and skew young people's ability to engage in other activities". 

The idea that adolescents in particular will begin to prefer to spend their time using technology or media, instead of with other humans and such, can be referred to as an issue of "escape", according to Joseph Dominick in, "Social Effects of Mass Communication". Many parents worry about their teenager "escaping" from the real world, but can we even really call it "escaping" when the media "realities" are becoming more and more like our real world experiences? Well, what Dominick and Dr. Graham both also express is concern about the future of media and technology, and how the advances to come may cause technology addiction to become more common.

I don't know about that, but I do think that it makes sense that it is possible to become addicted to technology because, in my opinion, it is possible to become addicted to almost anything. I do agree with Professor Mark Griffiths, who was quoted in the article, that true addicts are not very common. I also think that the steps for treating the addiction are very realistic. As Professor Griffiths said, "Any therapy should be about getting the behavior back under control". You see, they don't expect patients to be able to avoid technology or media, because that is quite impossible, but they do try and wean them off of their compulsive habit. 

I think this is a very healthy and reasonable way to go about treating the addicts. I, myself, am not an addict, but I certainly struggle with my prioritizing and spending to much time with media. So, although I am writing this blog, I am actually "fasting" from media at the moment. This means, aside from class purposes, I am not using "Facebook", "Youtube", the internet...I am not watching television, movies, or listening to music (unless I play it myself on the guitar). I can only check my email 2x a day and I can't text, only calls of less than 5 minutes! I chose to do this fast for myself, to see if I could do it and to remove myself from some of the anxiety it brings - you'd be surprised how much it causes! I also began this fast for my Theology class for extra credit. Maybe I will explain more in a later entry, but here are some numbers...

50 days

Start date: Tuesday, March 16th

Days so far: 9

End date: Tuesday, May 4th

Days to go: 41

I have found myself spending so much more time on more important thing, such as my relationships with other, my homework (haha), playing guitar/piano, etc. I have felt less anxious, less rushed. I'm not saying it's easy though...I will keep you all updated. Anyway, maybe you too should give it a try, of course you don't have to start at 7 weeks straight. Maybe just cut out one aspect that you feel keeps you from your relationships or seems to be stealing a lot of your time.

Do you  think you could do it? What do you think about the technology addiction or the treatment?

Cristi

Texts call for violence

Those readers, who go to Eastern University, PA, probably heard of the dance party we had first semester, called "Flash Dance". It was a night, when we had 5 parties at 5 places. However you did not know the places in advance. You got the information about the first place via text message 30 minutes before it started, and then you got another text message about the second place 5 minutes before the switch, etc. It was a kind of fun and excited, but imagine when this "flash" texting method are done for violent purposes. Why would someone do that? Well, apparently it happened. The New York Times has an article about the so-called "flash mobs", that occurred in Philadelphia, PA on Saturday, March 19, 2010.

A big number of young people filled South Street in Philadelphia and caused several damages and interruption for shop owners, pedestrians, and residents as well. There were pedestrians, who even got injured in the fights.
Eventually some of them got arrested by the police. These "flash mobs" are really getting on the nerves of the city residents, who have been complaining about the unsupervised, sometimes aggressive children on the streets. The solutions that are on the table are more jobs for kids, more summer jobs for kids, more after-school programming, and more parent support. Are the citizens or organizations going to be able to stop these "flash mobs", or is it going to keep going and maybe one day you get a text message too that is saying: "Come to XY street to make some trouble and have some fun!!!"

We have heard that the media have a negative influence on us, because its content are filled with violence and sexuality etc. In the book, The Dynamics of Mass Communication by Joseph R. Dominick, researches' results show that media violence can lead to some sort of aggression, but it definitely depends on the individual's personality and background. In order to prevent young children from getting inappropriate impression of anything, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has regulated the different mediums such as television in a way that certain programs are only allowed to be on Tv between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Now in this particular event we are talking about something different. Movies and programs are made to entertain the audience, even if they have violent content, but this is not what is happening here. Here media technology is used in order to create and boost violence. Not to mention that text messages do not go through any regulations, so basically anyone can write whatever he/she wants to anyone. It sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

Where is our world heading to? Does it show that we have to be prepared that anytime a group of young people just randomly attack us on the streets? I think it is important to see that the violent scenes that we see on Tv are now among us. What would you do if you got a text message like that? Would you call 911 or do you have any other idea?

Klaudia

Invisibility Cloak!

Coming soon eventually...Apparently scientist have discovered a way to make a 3-D
object unseen to the human eye! So, while we may not have a cloak big enough or ready for
humans yet, our "Harry Potter" hopes can live on : )
I'm not sure how media related this is, but it is new technology and I thought it was vital that I inform you!
haha
Well, a big thank you to all our dedicated readers. We hope you have been enjoying the discussions. Feel free to comment anytime; you don't need to have a blog yourself to do so. And please share our blog with others!

Right click here to open a new window, with the article on the specifics of the discovering...

Have a great day
Cristi

Scandal!!!

The word scandal has some pretty negative connotations, but when you hear that there is a "scandal" don't you sort of get a little excited?

We all probably get a little thrill out of them because it means that someone was caught doing something, either unintentionally or they just didn't "intend" to be discovered. Now, they could have been caught doing something good, but, let's admit it, that's usually not the case. You see I think the reason people enjoy scandals is because they can relate to getting caught doing something they are embarrassed or ashamed of.

Journalists and reporters, on the other hand, may or may not revel in the occurrence. The reason they don't always like scandals is because it disrupts their routine. Reporters usually have "beats", which are locations where they can be sure to get one or more "news stories" in a day (for example: the white house). So, if the scandal doesn't occur at one of these locations then the event may seem like a nuisance to the reporter. However, soon enough the reporters get on top of the story and the LOVE it! They love it because readers are captivated with shock and awe, which reporters then use to their advantage by dragging the story out and digging up "new" information to keep the public hooked.

The benefit that scandals bring to the public is that the effector, the person or company that caused the happening, is not the promoter, the person who advocates the action or publicizes it (usually the opposite is the case). So, when scandals occur, the "news" tends to be less skewed because the person who committed the act isn't really trying to benefit from it.

One scandal that I found out about recently is referred to as the Tailhook scandal. The annual Tailhook Symposium was taking place for the 35th time in 1991, at which the Navy and Marine Corps gathered for debriefing. At this "planned" event something unexpected occurred. Over 80 women were sexually assaulted! What's worse is that apparently some officers were aware of the sexual violations and misconduct, but they did nothing to stop it from happening. I am sure the media ate this story up and that there was quite a bit of coverage. BUT, there is a problem with scandals, and many big "news" stories, they DIE DOWN. 

I can sympathize with reporters because I'm sure that it gets boring for them if they continue writing about the same subject. Not to mention that the readers would probably get sick of it too. However, I think, as readers and the public, we need to encourage "follow up" and action. This means that reporters constantly update us on the situations and that, in this case, justice is served.

According to Steven Myers' article, and several other sources, the number of sexual assaults within the military (primarily against women) has NOT decreased. Women in the armed forces have to constantly be on their guard, not from the enemy army, but from the men along side them. It is very concerning and painful to read about the acts that have gone unreported or ignored. You see, although there may be people that the women can report to, many of the women are afraid of being pegged a "snitch" or being demoted, etc. I won't go into where the theology, that these disgusting acts suggest, comes from today. Today, I just want to demonstrate a weakness of the "news" and it's routines. Because until I started reading the book, The Lonely Soldier, two days ago I had not heard of sexual assaults within the armed forces AT ALL! I think the lack of coverage in the news on this serious problem demonstrates how significant issues come and go as "stories". The news wants to attract readership, so it can be influenced by popularity of subject matter, whether that subject seems important to you as an individual, or not.

What are your thoughts?

Sincerely, Cristi

(if you are looking for more information on the subject of women serving in the war and sexual assault DEFINITELY read The Lonely Soldier, which was just recently published in 2009!)

The "Nip Slip"

We all remember Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in the Superbowl; however, do we remember who was playing? The term "wardrobe malfunction" was created on that night which is now has been incorporated into our everyday communication.

This indecent exposure created a court battle between CBS and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The FCC has a plethora of "indecency complaints" (which mainly consist of content during primetime) and have now been able to now address the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction." This article cited Dan Isett who is the director of public policy for the Parents Television Council and said that the PTC is looking into different stations that have broadcast indecent material while children are watching. He stated that, "obviously this is the first step in the process of hopefully finding against some of these broadcasters that air that type of material." He also said that, "the FCC and Capitol Hill will still need to be encouraged and cajoled to do the simple enforcement of broadcast decency law that's so important to parents and families."

Apparently, the government is always looking out for the "public interest" however, what is the definition of that term? The FCC's definition of "public interest" is: by balancing the various groups of people (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003, pg. 86). The government was originally established to control the peace within this nation; but is it going too far to the point where it is worrying about wardrobe malfunctions instead of more pressing issues such as the war? I would say yes, the government and their programs are going WAY TOO FAR with censoring/controlling of the media, technology, and even personal lifestyles. Going to court costs a lot of money and I feel that the money can go into something more important like.... I don't know.... getting the country out of major debt instead of prosecuting CBS because they did not have enough of a delay in their programming.

sARAH

Do you wanna be well-informed?

Do you read, listen to or watch the news? Did you say "yes"? Nice. Do you do it often? Did you say "yes" again? Even better. Do you have several sources? Also "yes"? If you answered yes for all three questions, you are probably a well-informed news consumer. However if you said "no" for any of them, you may want to improve your habits. Keeping attention what is going on in our world around us is our own responsibility. Needless to say there are many ways to get information. Unfortunately, many of us do not use them. In an article on the website of the New York Times, the author talks about a Pew Research Center's study on how the audience seeks for news online. They found out that 35% of them have a favorite site, 21% of them go on only one site to read news and the rest 57% rely on 2-5 sources. Not to mention that these online sources are all free. Some news sites has been considering though to start some kind of pay system. The research also showed that only 7% of the audience is willing to pay for online news. However the news sites still be satisfied if 5-10% of their readers would actually pay for the news.

As you can see from the numbers, reaching for news is not the most important thing in our lives. If it is a part of your lives at all, what you want to do is to make sure that you get your news from different types of media sources. We were talking on my media class about where we should get our news from. The most significant rule was : "DO NOT WATCH TV NEWS?" Why? Tv news are too limited and constant to give enough proven information about any happenings. In addition it is not accurate enough and might miss some researches.
What are the best ways to get reasonable news? Either newspaper or online. This two can give you more information than the Tv news on one average day. The best online news and newspaper you can look at would be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Week, The Economist. These papers deal with relevant occurrences we may want to know about. However these focus on the news in the United States. Do not forget that the United States is just one out of the six continents. There are hundreds of happenings in Europe or in Asia that stay outside of these papers' view or interest. A good news consumer does not eliminate other countries. To keep up with Europe you should check out the website of BBC. For news in Asia you may want to look at theasiannews.co.uk

Personally, as a college student I do not really have time to follow the news regularly, but recently I try to spend more and more time to look at different news sites. I remember in the first semester i would talk to my mom or dad and they would tell me if I heard about something that happened in the world, and I would just say "no, I don't have time, and we don't have a Tv in our room." Now I see how crazy answer it was. Now in the second semester I am still a college student but I make time to catch up with the world's news. Oh, and I don't even need a Tv, because I can get more accurate news online.
Have you had any similar experience? Can you say "yes" if I ask you the question? Can you mention two breaking news that happened last week?

Klaudia

Japans very own FCC

Recently, I came across an article on www.broadcastingcable.com that said that Japan was pondering whither or not the should have their own FCC. Representatives from NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corp.) were in Washington this week to interview current leaders of the FCC such as former Republican FCC Chairman Dick Wiley, former Democratic Chairman Reed Hundt and current senior Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Japan. Japanese representatives told B&C that a Japanese FCC might be able to maintain “to a certain degree” consistent broadcast and telecommunications policy independent of political power struggles. This is the reason Japan is thinking about adding their own FCC. Right now, Japan’s Internal Affairs Ministry oversees broadcasting and telecom for their country. It is something that has been working for many years but as senior media analyst Atsushi Shibata says, “it may be time for a change.”

For years, the FCC has been a force in American media, basically controlling what can and cannot happen. According to the textbook, “Media Society’ by David Croteau and William Hoynes the FCC regulates according to the public’s interest. This means that the FCC has the power to, in a sense, go against the first amendment if deemed necessary. For example, the FCC has the power to control what can and cant be shown on TV. There are certain things that you will never see on cable television, such as nudity, because the FCC prohibits it. But this is an issue that Japanese leaders had when discussing weather or not to have their own FCC. Japanese leaders wanted to know what the relationship between the FCC and the courts was? The FCC’s rules or orders are not always final and decisive, Broadcasting companies often appeal to courts. A perfect example of this would be CBS’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction.” In this case, CBS was fined by the FCC for indecency, but CBS later appealed to the courts because they claimed that because the event was live, they had no control over the incident. (That case has not been ruled yet) Japanese leaders wanted to know why the FCC, with all of its power, wasn’t the deciding factor when it came to media? Why was the court able to interfere? Theses questions are ones that will have to be answered before Japan makes any final decisions about adding their own FCC.

Because I don’t know much about Japanese media, I don’t know if adding a FCC would be a good idea or not, but it is still interesting to know that Japan is thinking about adapting to one on America’s systems. I think it cool that other countries take notice on customs here in the United States. I wonder what American customs were originally from another Country’s, if any? It seems to me like America wants many countries to adapt to some of the things we do, but I never hear any news about how America chooses to adapt to a custom from another country. Maybe we do.. I just have to do more research =)

David S.

Did you hear the news?!

Well even if you did, you still might not know. That is because the truth is none of us may be hearing about really significant news stories and investigations. And why is this? This is the result of reasons that include, entertainment journalism, less reporters, and the techniques that newspapers/stations have been using to try and stay on their feet. Just yesterday, the Federal Communications Commissions Commissioner, Michael Copps, spoke with Patt Morrison on the radio (some of the conversation has been posted in article/written form on the stations website). A recent study has revealed that within the typical 30 minute L.A. newscast, only about 22 seconds are devoted to local government coverage, and the rest to sports or weather! Copps expressed concern in reaction to both this information and other signs, that he'd already noticed, suggesting that goal of news is slightly corrupted. He recognizes that cuts are having to be made, with many stations and news rooms closing down. There are less positions available and even less investigative journalism going on.However, he does not believe this justifies the routine that journalism seems to be following now. Serviss, the author of the article, summarizes, saying that, "the overall shift of broadcast media away from hard news reporting and toward an “infotainment” style of coverage". Infotainment essentially means that news content has sifted to become more entertainment focused in order to keep stories light and bring in as many viewers as possible. News networks are mostly seeking to stay afloat, so they encourage viewers to keep watching, in this case by keeping the government stories short.

Here's the deal...While we may not like to think so, the news is not really ever going to be completely objective because it is a part of the media. Now wait a minute! I am not calling the media "evil" or anything like that. I am just explaining that the goal of the news is not just to inform, but also to succeed. There is competition between all the stations to get higher ratings (number of viewers, etc) than each other, so the stations have to be sure that the audience will like what they see. You see, the larger the group of followers, the more money. As it says in the book Media Society, "Economic forces identify the goals and shape the terrain of the decision-making process [in media]," (p. 122). So, if the news is not just driven to inform us, but now most of the stories revolve around entertaining us, then should we change our expectation of what news is? I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't plan on lowering my expectations. Let me explain...While I don't expect the news to be completely objective, I do expect the news to follow significant issues, from the local government to international concerns. I would agree with Copps' description of news, "the information [we] need to be fully informed and to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues to be engaged in the discussions and decisions that affect [our] community." It saddens me to think that we are loosing sight of many important things going on out in the world, especially while we have so many resources that provide us the ability to connect with others all of over the world.

How much control do we have over this shrinking perception? I definitely feel as though I have little control. It embarrasses me a little, but I must say that the small pieces of information and knowledge that I gain about the nation and the world are incredibly influenced by what is covered in the media. For instance, most news coverage recently (well not very recently, but moving on) has sifted from coverage of the war in Iraq to the troubles in Afghanistan. Based on this, if I was asked about what was going on in both areas, I could probably only tell about some of the situation in Afghanistan.
Do you feel the same way? Are we so shaped by what others choose to call "newsworthy"? What do you think classifies something as newsworthy?

Think about it ;-)
Cristi

Freedom of Status Updates

“Does anyone know where I can find a very discrete hitman? Yes, it’s been that kind of day…” This was the Facebook status of Gloria Gadsden who was a sociology professor at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania. No sooner was this posted, she was fired for this offensive status update. Apparently, this was not the first time she commented on her students. In February, she “had a good day today. DIDN’T want to kill even one student. :-) Now Friday was a different story.” She claims that her posts were just a joke and were not to be taken seriously and was not aware that other people other than her friends and family could see her profile. It is reported that a student called attention to this even though the student was not on Gadsden’s friend list. “My friends and family knew I was being facetious. They knew I wasn’t targeting anyone.” Her spurious were not happy with this violent posting because there had been a prior meeting with the faculty about the shooting spree by another professor at the University Alabama-Huntsville. Marilyn Wells who is the university’s interim provost and vice president for academic affairs said that, “Given the climate of security concerns in academia, the university has an obligation to take all threats seriously and act accordingly.”

(This article was retrieved from: ABCNews.com)

Okay, who of us haven’t said an empty threat to a certain degree? I could have my update as “Sarah hates her roommate and wants to kill her because she comes in late all the time! :P” and know that this was empty (this is NOT true; I love you Anna!!!). What makes this “empty” is that I ended my status with a little face. Now if you look back, Gadsden did have a happy face in her status prior to the one that fired her. This tells me that she really didn’t truly mean it and I highly doubt that her tone changed in a month... she just forgot the little face for this update. One, who is dumb enough to really go and acquire a hit man on Facebook?! (Maybe I shouldn't ask that….) But still…. Who would and TRULY mean it?

I was thinking that there HAD to be some underlying problem with this teacher. You can’t just fire a professor just because of one questionable statue update. I feel like the university was patiently waiting for the perfect time to be able to “justly” fire her. The First Amendment states that citizens have freedom of expression. I believe that this professor was acting within the boundaries of the amendment. It’s not like she was yelling “fire” in a theater. She was jokingly saying that she wanted to kill her students after a hard day at work; is this a crime? In the summary of the article, it indicated that Gadsden had a numerous status updates that alluded to the death of her students. Within the statement of Facebook, Gadsden did not violate any of the Safety content (in my opinion).

My dear reader, do you believe that it was right for the university to fire her?

sARAH

"If it Bleeds, it Leads"

The Urban Dictionary describes this saying by stating that it "basically means the the media loves violence." This is not only true now, but also back in 1888 when the Star began to cover the story of "Jack the Ripper." Now, for those of you who know me well, you know I have a fascination with the story of Jack the Ripper so you knew he would come into play with my blogging at some point.

Readers, usually my post has something to do with class, but it being "spring" break, I felt like doing something different that really has nothing to do with class. This is going to be more of a historical kind of blog which I hope you enjoy.

Like I said, I love the story of Jack. I was watching this show with my mom and it was about his impact on the media. I thought, how perfect I can blog about this. So I grabbed a pen and paper and took some notes!

Before I get into anything, I have found that some people do not know who Jack the Ripper is so here's a Wiki link and you can read all about him. In short, he was a sadistic killer who targeted prostitutes in Whitechapel, England in the late 1800s and was never caught....

The Star was an up-and-coming newspaper who's targeted audience was people that could not read very well. Desperate to increase profit, they linked two murders to others that had been reported. Creating this lie, the Star's circulation dramaticly increased. At this time, integrity was not considered.... This new sadistic killer took a break and that resulted in a drop of sales for the Star.... so what to do? Oh, I know! - let's make a fake letter and publish it!

The name "Jack the Ripper" did not become a label to the public until someone from the inside of newspaper, Mr. Best a journalists, wrote a fake letter to the company. This letter is known as the "Dear Boss Letter."

The letter lacks "personality" and the content of the letter is "too perfect" for a newspaper trying to sell a top story (Note: the Star was the ONLY newspaper that published this letter....). Also, if you look at the signature, it's as if the signer forgot who he was; the "r" at the end seems to be almost forgotten. In addition, the signature is the same script as the body of the letter. So again, integrity did not exist during this time. This was the beginning of the circulation of the name we all know now as "Jack the Ripper." At the time, this was a somewhat "provocative" name because the name "Jack" was very common in children's books and mainstream society as having a "clean and innocent" connotation at the time and the name "Ripper".... well, I don't need to go into that because I think you got it.

This letter, however, is the REAL letter Jack the Ripper wrote to a Mr. Lusk who was the head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee:

This letter is laced with personality and there is a creepy look to the letter that pretty much authenticates the letter with no analysis. This was postmarked on the 15th of October 1888 after the murder of Catherine Eddowes. Oh, I almost forgot to say... if you are able to read his writing, Jack says that he sent half of this woman's kidney and the other half.... he eat and said it was "very nice."

Not only did the media fabricate letters, but also suspects. Some of the candidates were: Walter Sicket (an artist), Lewis Carroll (author of Alice In Wonderland), the Duke of Clarence (the grandson of Queen Victoria), and lastly the Jews (who get blamed for everything sadly [even back then!!]...) and Irish.

So when you see those crazy newspapers and television shows that fabricate stories.... you can thank Jack the Ripper for being the pioneer of tabloid media! I find it fascinating that though Jack the Ripper prowled the streets of Whitechapel so long ago, he still lingers in the media from time to time. One of many examples, a few years ago Derek Brown copied Jack by killing women in the same manner; however, he was caught. As the saying goes, "often imitated, never duplicated."

I am trying to find out what show I saw and once I do, I will tell you!

sARAH