News Journalism Project (Anti-piracy)

News source one is FoxNews.com

Site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/02/proposals-to-target-online-piracy-trigger-alarm-from-tech-industry/

The bill is H.R.3261 which is the Stop Online Piracy Act
By: Shawn Woods and Evan Jensen


Fox news (Shawn Woods)

Our topic is the Anti-piracy Legislation that is trying to be passed right now. This bill is going to tighten up on all types of Internet piracy. An example of this would be not allowing people to have music or copyrighted content playing in any type of audiovisual recording posted on the Internet. This bill could hurt a variety of online sites that allow user posted content such as Facebook, Google+, YouTube, and many others. The authors of the bill claim that this will not be the case; they say that the bill will target more organized sites that are compiling data for distribution. The bill also will make it a felony to stream copyrighted content (which is illegal now, but not enforced) like cam’ed movies, TV shows posted illegally, and listening to music on hosting sites. There is a lot more in the bill that defines the rest of the parameters but Fox did not touch on the other parts. Thus Fox News made this reporting and representation of what is going on, “partial”. Not looking at the all of the facets of the bill that make it less frightening shapes the representation to fit into the news stereotype that the news is meant to scare people; because when the news is scary people regard it as having a larger impact on them.

                  An interesting view on Fox News is that we have come to know that they usually take a more conservative view on things; this has been formed over years of biased broadcasting. However, in this article they are taking a more liberal stand saying that this bill might be bad. Fox News is loved by many of the more conservative politicians and has been since its launch in 1996. The conservatives that watch Fox News feel like they don’t have to “play the ref”, as Seth Ackerman put it in an article he wrote describing the point of view of Fox News, because the ref is already on their side. Fox says “We report it, you decide”, yet almost every article or news story produced by the company is framed in a certain way that obviously leans to the right (my arguments, in this paper show that I obviously lean to the left).

                  In this article Fox did not take much of a blatant stand they just framed the story to highlight what the “critics” said as well as bringing up some of the more frightening parts of the bill. When I first read the article I thought that there was no particular side that they took on the bill but after reading it again I found that it is again a conservative stance. “…Or a needed legal tool to stop rogue operators overseas from stomping all over copyrights…” this is one of many comments placed throughout the article that shows that it takes a more conservative stance on the matter. Having “or a needed tool…” in the sentence as well as “stomping all over copyrights” shows that they are in favor of the bill and think it should pass. The article is not very long only around 800 words which to me make it seem like it is not a big deal to them because they know everything about the topic. The brevity of the article also makes it seem like this is what it is and there is nothing more to it; this stance is the only one to be had. And by using “critics” all the time and never giving an opinion on the matter shows that the critics are just critics who are usually negative and overly “critical”. Fox also does not link to any supporting material for or against the bill, not giving us any outside information to look towards for some other point of view on the topic. In the article there are more statements that are for the bill than there are statements that contain information denouncing it. Again with this limited view we are forced to take the only stand that we are allowed to take. The rhetoric of the article sways us to the point of view of the writer. The writer never voices his opinion but he only offers quotes from supporters and critics, thus he is trying to seem like he is remaining unbiased yet by only offering the views that he saw fit he can make it seem like the most popular view is for the bill. The layout of some of the sentences gives the certain sentences more weight than others. An example of this would be

 “Judiciary Committee aides vehemently reject this claim”.

This line is its own line just like above, giving it more importance than other lines. This is making it seem like it is a fact that the bill is not too broad and will not affect sites like Facebook and other sites like it. There are many sentences like this that give them weight which increases the rhetoric of the article. While the reporter argued in this fashion it is not his fault primarily, because we all are human and we are all prone to experimenter or research bias that unintentionally directs our point of view and we find and use things that fit our biases. But By Fox News potentiating this right winged bias, they receive funding and support from many powerful and influential people which makes the news channel owned by these people. These powerful politicians and others with this point of view shape history in this media outlet. This supports Herman and Chomsky’s hypothesis that the mass media is owned and controlled by wealthy people. Luckily we have many news outlets, and luckily there are a lot of different wealthy people and politicians with other point of views that represent the other side of the story, and that is how I think that history is formed.

(Talking about how the owner of Fox News has ties to MSNBC, so a wealthy man owning the news)

(Evan Jensen)

Second Source:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20114547-261/is-google-lining-up-republicans-against-antipiracy-bill/

                  It’s a bit difficult to find someone that is against the Anti-Piracy bill and/or the Pro IP ACT, other than consumers, since piracy hurts so many companies and is currently illegal.  An article from CNET, points out some opposition to these two pieces of pieces of possible legislation.  The article shows us that Google is trying to oppose the new legislation and provides some other opposition from smaller groups such as the Tea Party Patriots and Lawrence Lessig.

                  The article brings up how Google is one of a few companies, who are in close ties with the Democratic Party, but in this case they are crossing to the other side and delving into the Republican side in order to somehow help opposed the new possible legislation.   It is believed that Google also helped the group the Tea Party Patriots take a stand on copyright matters, since they’ve never had a stand on it before and normally deal with promoting fiscal responsibility and smaller government.  The TPP pounced on the Pro IP bill in a Facebook post stating “Have your own website? Maybe the government will shut it down tomorrow…without any notice to you.”  Opponents, such as TPP see the bill as a “threat to free speech” and that it will hinder innovation of technology.

                  Lawrence Lessig, who is a professor at Harvard, is an enemy of the movie and music industry due to his support of “free content and less restrictive copyright laws.”  He co-hosted a conference with a co-founder of the TPP.  This shows that they are in agreement, and according to CNET, this linking startled Pro IP supporters.

                  I feel this article really pushes against the new legislation by indicating a lot of the critics’ points of view.  Also it uses links to most of the references to back up the oppositions.  Although, CNET backs off a bit at the end when it mentions that Google, in order to build out their “cloud-music service”, needs licenses, so therefore stating that Google has to oppose quietly.   Which leaves me to believe, assuming it’s true, that is why they are using the TPP for their opposition.  This helps support what is stated about our first article, “…the mass media is owned and controlled by wealthy people.” 

Brief comparison

These two sources are completely different and one is a mainstream media giant and the other is a computer nerd’s paradise. These two sources display media very differently. Fox displays a certain point of view while the CNET only appeals to a certain subgroup of people for which these articles are made. Both of these sources are owned and give out partial news stories that appeal to the majority of the targeted audience. For Fox news the information is aimed at conservative rich people, where as CNET is focused at the pirating, technology savvy computer users. For this certain topic this could not have been a better choice of sources; because the people that read the CNET articles are the people that are probably streaming and downloading the content discussed in the bill.  And the Fox watchers/readers are usually the right winged people who own businesses that are really for this bill. One major difference is that CNET gave links to relevant information so that we may look at other viewpoints as well as remaining more neutral in the news. Fox again did not give any links to other information so we were not able to get another viewpoint on the matter.

Finally this is an important bill that is being passed now; it will alter the Internet forever (or until it gets amended). However, it will not affect the people as much as it is hyped up to. Reading the bill showed that this new bill is focused towards international domain names that are hosted out of the US and major sites directed to distribution of copyrighted content. So unless you are watching movies that are still in theaters and planning on selling them, or hosting a site that has a lot of music that is copyrighted without permission then you will be fine. “History” is not the same for everyone, so for certain people different news sources will form different histories. So the powerful people may shape the places we get our news but there are a lot of places to get our news.