If you’ve
been following the presidential campaign, you’ve heard all about the sexual
harassment claims against presidential candidate Herman Cain. Several women
have come forward claiming Cain had sexually harassed them in their previous
work place. With Cain being the head of the National Restaurant Association in
the 1990’s it’s hard to know if these women are simply accusing to accuse, or
if these are indeed true. During 1996-1999 while Cain was at the head of the
corporation a woman was given a $35,000 severance package because she felt
uncomfortable working there with him. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/politics/herman-cain-accuser-got-a-years-salary-in-severance-pay.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=herman%20cain&st=cse.
Later on in 1999, the woman who had made the claims was able to sign a release
of confidentiality and she would then be able to dispute with Cain about the
allegations. Throughout the entire thing Cain said none of the claims had any
merit whatsoever. With the presidential campaign in full swing, an accusation
like this either makes people turn their backs completely on the candidate, or
they start become very interested and start giving him even more attention than
they had before. With the previous Tiger Woods scandal it blew up worldwide
because he is such a well-known figure in society and people couldn’t believe
it. There were so many different stories that came out about it and nobody
could believe People Magazine, from the New York Times, to trashy gossip
magazines. With this current scandal involving a presidential candidate people
are even more engaged in the story because this person is running to lead our
country. Kind of a big deal. Whether it be a famous athlete, or a politician, everyone is going to have their own view on the matter and at that point it doesn't matter if the story came from gossip or fact. People believe what they want to believe. While many magazines and media outlets are looking
at the negative side of the story, cheap gossip sites such as TMZ, look at the
Herman Cain scandal as a good thing for his campaign. In the video above from
TMZ it explains how they think it’s going to be a good thing for him. They
think if anything it will only give him more attention and with so many
different sexual harassment scandals occurring these days, people are starting
to not believe them anymore. Most of the time we assume that the women making
these claims are just looking for some media attention. After we come to that
conclusion, we all forget about the claims and in the end, a person like Herman
Cain gets away Scott free. TMZ only covered the story once, but only because
they had nothing else to say about it. They got to the point of what they were
trying to say with this story, they gave their opinion and that was the end of
it. Whereas on the other hand, newspapers like the New York Times have been
covering this story almost every day because people are curious to find out
more and more about Cain considering he could be the next president of the
United States.
Comparing
the two different media outlets, TMZ hasn’t done nearly as much research on the
story as the New York Times has. The main difference between the two media
outlets is that TMZ covers the story once, they have one solid opinion, and
they’re done. They made the scandal seem trivial considering the fact that
there have been numerous sexual harassment scandals in the last couple years.
TMZ is basically speaking for the people that just don’t give a crap about it
anymore. TMZ also doesn’t have as much credibility as some major newspapers so
people won’t always pay attention to cheap gossip. As far as the ‘politics of
representation’ TMZ could care less about how they are making themselves look
once they voice their opinion. That is the entire point of a gossip site. They
don’t have anyone to prove themselves to, like New York Times, who has a lot to
live up to. The New York Times has to cover every single detail on the scandal
because it is a factual media outlet. People rely on the real, true facts, not
gossip, or even opinion. The New York
Times is different from TMZ because they are just reporting cold hard facts,
they don’t make jokes about the situation, they don’t inflate the story to make
it more interesting, they simply report the story and put it the newspaper
every day in order for the people to stay informed. TMZ wants and needs
attention for their particular media outlet and they feed off of the people
that like to hear stories that appear to be much worse than they actually are.
The New York Times has standards to live up to. TMZ is meant to not live up to anyone’s
standards; they’re supposed to be controversial. That’s the biggest difference
of all.
These media
outlets are controlling the news and history because however it is published,
that’s how it will be remembered. With TMZ reporting about how they think this
will help Herman Cain and making a joke out of his campaign and saying the
allegations aren’t anything to worry about, that will be put into history as
nobody cared, these types of things happen all of the time. With The New York
Times trying to be as factual and as credible as possible that will be put into
history as strictly facts and that they weren’t ever making it appear to be
different than it actually was. By far, subjectivity is controlling the media
the most. It doesn’t matter what the different media outlets are reporting,
these days people have their own opinions, they will view it in their own way
and then it doesn’t matter what everyone else around them thinks. Our view on
the world has become so distorted over the last few years that nothing seems to
faze anyone these days. A sexual scandal is just a normal thing on at least one
page of a media outlet. Its common now, nobody flinches. So whether a credible
news source like the New York Times is reporting, or a sleazy media outlet such
as TMZ, it’s all up to the reader. Whatever their interpretation is, that’s how
they’re going to view it. With so many different opinions, nothing is really
controlling the news and history except our own individual minds and how we
choose to remember it.
--Kelsey Gynild
No comments:
Post a Comment