Do the Media Challenge the Powerful?

     I think that our media challenges those in power all the time.  I have seen networks like CNN and MSNBC consistently challenging then candidate, now President, Trump and I have seen Fox News consistently challenge President Obama.  I can see the bias of these networks clearly; CNN and MSNBC lean left, while Fox News leans right.  So, our decision as consumers of this media becomes: what opinion do we want to hear when we turn on the news?  I do think that our media challenges our political leaders, but because certain news networks lean to different political views, you must watch a variety of networks to hear tough questions being asked about, and to, political leaders of different political parties.
     I was able to find a lot of examples of various networks challenging our political leaders.  Most of the examples I found were predictable based on the networks that they were on; many Fox News stories challenge Democrats and their policies and many MSNBC and CNN stories challenge Republicans and their policies. However, there were still some clips that surprised me.  One of these clips is from a show on MSNBC challenging the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and various news papers after the election, and the other is on a Fox News show that challenges then Candidate Trump's call for a "Muslim ban".   I provided the links to these two clips as well as a few more "predictable", in my opinion, clips of the media challenging those in political power.
     As to the discussion of fake news, I think that this has become a larger issue recently because the Internet and social media have become a part of most -if not all- people's lives in a huge way.  Anyone from anywhere can put their opinions into the public domain, which means that they can also put out lies. We are over saturated with information, and it can be overwhelming to take on the task of sifting through the truth, the lies, and the bias that can make the truth blurry.  I think that we have always needed to filter the information that we take in from our various media sources, but it is essential in today's climate of constant information dumping to read between the lines with anything that you see or hear.  This is frustrating, because I think that we all want to live in a world where the truth ultimately comes to the surface, but this is not always a reality.  We are responsible for being critical thinkers when it comes to our news and media, even though it may be difficult at times.

These clips surprised me:

Fox News: Bill O’Reilly discussing then candidate Trump's call for a "Muslim ban":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhYMPwdEgM

MSNBC Morning Joe: Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski discussing the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and some news papers concerning the election results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa0Og9TILiM

These clips were more predictable in my opinion:

CNN reporter Jim Acosta asks Trump about WikiLeaks and Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2eTo1et6VI

Fox News: Megyn Kelly discussing President Obama's silence about Kate Steinle's murder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6TF-a0AJo

MSNBC: Rachel Maddow discussing then President Elect Trump's policy and comments with Kellyanne Conway (begins approximately five minutes into the video clip):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4HxrVJvAGc

Week 4: "Joystick Warriors"

     I found an article titled 14 Mass Murders Linked to Violent Video Games (link: http://www.charismanews.com/culture/52651-14-mass-murders-linked-to-violent-video-games).  It described different instances in which people committed crimes and also played violent video games. It was particularly disturbing to read an online conversation between a soon-to-be shooter and fellow gamers, encouraging him to go through with a shooting and advising him on how to make it a "successful" one.  The author of this article was arguing that violent video games can cause people to be violent, and that it can cause them to have an altered view of reality.  I think that in some cases violent video games can inspire violence, but for the most part I feel that playing violent video games is only one of many factors that causes someone to become violent.  If everyone who played video games was violent, it would not be safe anywhere.  I do agree with the film Joystick Warriors that video games can change one's perspective of violence to make them more desensitized to it.  This effect has its own ramifications, such as being comfortable with seeing violence, or as the film describes, being a less empathetic person.
     The film also discussed the product placement of weapons, mainly guns, in various video games.  I do not think that there is a need for much concern about this.  Just because a product is advertised, blatantly or subliminally, does not mean that you have to buy it, or even become more accepting of it.  Even if some people would like to buy a gun because of the marketing in video games, and assuming these gun owners are responsible, why is this a problem?  Just because someone buys a gun after seeing it in a video game does not mean that they will use it as they would in that game.  Of course, not everyone is a responsible gun owner, and may use their gun to inflict harm.  I just do not think that gun sales would be harmed significantly if they were no longer advertised in video games.  There were some interesting statistics that I found in a Washington Post article about the drop in gun ownership in the last forty years (link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.8988ce28ac5c).  Video games have become more violent and presumably advertise guns more often now than forty years ago, yet less people own guns than they did in the late 1970s.  The article did say that people who own guns own a greater number of guns, but this does not necessarily connect to the product placement of guns in video games.  It shows that there are not as many new buyers of guns, which is what the video games' main target audience is; young people that do not own guns yet.  For this reason, I do not think that the marketing of weapons in video games should be a concern; it does not seem to inspire that many young gamers to buy guns.

Week 3: "Happy Violence"

     "Happy violence" is when a movie or TV show uses humor to sort of "sugar coat" violence.  Scenes with "happy violence" will tend to take an act of violence that would ordinarily be upsetting or disturbing and add a joke or something funny to the situation that distracts from the violent act, and instead make you laugh.  This way, we can become desensitized to violence, because it is being portrayed as something that is funny or not serious.
     Some of the best examples of "happy violence" that I could find were in the movies Deadpool and Suicide Squad.  Both movies mixed comedy with graphic violence throughout, making it much easier to watch and enjoy.  Personally, I thought Deadpool was clever and hilarious, despite the over the top violence during the whole movie.  One example of "happy violence" in this film is when Deadpool  has to kill several "bad guys" with a limited amount of bullets.  So, he counts the bullets as he kills them brutally, throwing in countless jokes and innuendos to lighten the mood.  This makes the violence easier to watch, because you are more focused on the sarcasm rather than the violence.  It also glorifies his skills to both kill a bunch of "bad guys" and while maintaining a clever sense of humor.
     In Suicide Squad,  the main characters are "bad guys" with super powers.  So, there are often scenes where they are joking about violence.  One of the characters, Harley Quinn, is always making jokes and is usually in a good mood no matter what is going on around her or what she is doing (which is usually violence).  This makes the character more approachable, even though she may be doing terrible things.  Both movies make violence easier to watch, because they make light of it.
     Below are links to the trailers for these movies.  I am sure that a lot of you have seen the trailers or the movies already but I thought that they illustrate the concept of "happy violence" well.  Of course, the Deadpool trailer contains a lot of graphic violence and profanity, so be advised if that is not something you want to see.  The Suicide Squad trailer contains violence as well.
                 
Deadpool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz4AqfIAqnY
Suicide Squad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKMgB01MU-w

                                                                 http://nerdist.com/tag/deadpool/

Week Two: "Who Owns the Media?"

     I discovered that most of the channels, shows, and movies that I watch are owned by News Corp, Time Warner, Inc., Comcast, Viacom, and the Walt Disney Company.  I looked up a couple of the owners and CEOs of these companies.  David Folkenflik from the Washington post discusses myths about Rupert Murdoch, who owns News Corp, and has Conservative leaning views.  And, according to columnist Rick Newman, Robert Iger who owns the Walt Disney Company is on the left side of the political spectrum.  I also found that I consume media from three out of the four internet media owners mentioned on freepress.net, including Google, Apple, and Microsoft.  It was interesting to see that there are less than thirty big owners of all forms of media combined.  I always thought that there were many more small companies and owners, but this website showed me how concentrated the influence is.  Having this knowledge helps me recognize why networks promote certain ideas or follow the same themes.  After learning more about the limited amount of sources out there, I think that I am more likely to do a quick search about the source of the shows I watch or other media I consume. I feel more informed when I turn on the television or surf the internet now because I am more skeptical of my sources.