The media lives for stories that grab attention and captivate the minds of the viewers. Resulting in fame and admiration for the source that found such a intriguing tale. Obtaining stories that do such things aren't easy to come by. The media may resort to stretching the truth to create a more noteworthy story. Some even succumb to fabricating enticing stories and claim it as truth for ones own gain. O'Reilly and his stories from El Salvador are a prime example of fabrication in action.
"O'Reilly has claimed repeatedly that he witnessed the execution of nuns while reporting in 1981 on the civil war in El Salvador, an apparent fabrication that is at odds with both history and what O'Reilly himself has said about arriving in the country after the event took place". O'Reilly continues to talk about his time in El Salvador as a CBS correspondent today. He has said multiple times that he actually saw the churchwomen being executed. In 2005 he said, "I've seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador," and in 2012 he again discussed how "[he] was in El Salvador and [he] saw nuns get shot in the back of the head". However, if he was telling the truth of his whereabouts during the time of the civil war in El Salvador, it is not possible that he actually witnessed the murder of these nuns. In his book The No Spin Zone, "O'Reilly details a reporting assignment in which he arrived...shortly after it had been wiped out by the rebels and witnessed carnage that was obviously recent," but he never discusses him seeing anyone being killed, much less the nuns. "O'Reilly even admitted he had arrived in El Salvador right after the killings during an interview... in 2009". So why would he continue to change his story after admitting he was not present during the execution?
O'Reilly gained fame for covering the civil war in El Salvador. His fame and reputation started from a story he fabricated about witnessing the murder of nuns, something that captivated the minds of viewers during that time. What could be more credible and intriguing than an eyewitness account? However, he continues to switch his story from time to time and it is drawing attention. He "exaggerated his claims of being in a "combat situation" during the Falklands War". He could lose his credibility if the fabrication of his accounts are revealed on a wider scale. He could lose everything he has worked for. Would his white lie be worth it?
Articles Cited:
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/25/another-fabrication-oreilly-never-witnessed-the/202667)
In the United States, Fox and MSNBC are some of the top dominating 24 hour news channels. While Fox and MSNBC are reporting the same news stories, you get a completely different experience and coverage on the hot topics they are covering. Fox is notoriously biased against Obama and his decisions, while MSNBC is known for supporting him. This can be seen clearly through the coverage of Syrian refugees on the contrasting news channels.
When Fox was covering the Syrian refugees being allowed to seek shelter in the United States, they used negative terminology towards the refugees as well as the government officials in charge of screening. They used terms such as bloody, asylum-seekers, terror-ties, lack of on-the-ground intelligence, and ruthlessness. These terms show an obvious negative bias towards the Syrian refugees being allowed to enter the United States, as well as the people in charge of allowing them in. The negative bias doesn't stop there. Fox news channel displays their opposition towards Obama by exemplifying their "mounting concerns over whether the Obama administration can properly vet [Syrian refugees]". They also talk about how it is "impossible to trust screening" and the "lack of ground intelligence necessary to identify terror links". Fox news also discusses the white house and how vague they were when questioned about the screening procedures used to determine which refugees were safe to come into the United States. It is obvious how negatively Fox news feels toward the incoming refugees and Obama allowing them in.
MSNBC also covered the Syrian refugees being allowed into the United States. However, it was a completely different experience than Fox's coverage. MSNBC used much more positive terminology, such as welcome, accepted, encourage, help, and in need. It is easily recognizable by just the terms being used that they are in favor of Obama's decision to allow the refugees into the United States. MSNBC also exhibits their positivity towards the incoming refugees by discussing how the "U.S. will welcome refugees" and "[their] plans to encourage other countries to "ramp up" their humanitarian efforts in the region, as well as their willingness to take in Syrian refugees". MSNBC then discusses how the decision to allow refugees into the states came "amid increasing pressure from human rights groups for President Obama to do more to help the millions of displaced Syrians". This could be a ploy to increase positive views on Obama's decision by showing that there was a demand from human rights groups. MSNBC also doesn't "anticipate that the U.S. would have a significant problem in trying to meet the ambitious goal the President has laid out". Again, MSNBC is using positive language to talk about Obama and his decision to allow refugees in the U.S.
It is quite clear that Fox and MSNBC are biased on the acceptance of the Syrian refugees into the country. Fox is very negative and pushes the idea that there should be high concern over the decision Obama made, as well as the refugees and officials screening them. MSNBC completely ignores the fact that problems may arise from the incoming Syrians. They keep a positive outlook and are pleased with Obama's decision to welcome the refugees into the country. This extreme difference in the type of coverage effects the viewer's perception of the Syrian refugees and inflicts highly emotional responses from both Fox and MSNBC viewers. The way it was covered skewed the reality of what is actually occurring and leads the population to think the way that the opposing news channels would want.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/us-accept-1000-syrian-refugees)
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/28/surge-syrian-refugees-into-us-stirs-security-concerns.html)
Advertising's goal, more often than not, is to get the consumers to buy the product the ad is selling. The market is extremely competitive and some companies will go to whatever lengths necessary to reel customers in. Some companies will even resort to misleading and deceiving their customers. However, they try to cover their backs by putting the information that would keep you from buying the product in the fine print. That being said, if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. You should always read the fine print before committing to a product, or you may end up like many of the customers at DirecTV.
DirecTV was promoting the "popular 12 month discount package" which advertises a "12 month plan for as little as $19.95" per month. This sounds like a great deal to the unassuming customer viewing this ad. However, they were unaware of what came along with this 12 month discount package. DirecTV does not make it clear that a 2 year contract is required if you want to get the discount package. After the first year, the prices jump from $19.95 a month to a much higher price. The prices go up from anywhere between $25 and $45 a month. Once the customer finds out how much their discount package is costing them, they can cancel their contract... for $480. The high price for the cancelation fee almost ensures that the customers will stick to the contract since the fee may very well be around the same price they would pay originally. The customers also have to cancel "free premium channels like HBO and Showtime that they get during the first 3 months of the package". If they don't cancel in time, they are automatically charged for these channels.
"DirecTV is the largest satellite television provider in the country" with over 20 million subscribers. How ethically sound is it for them do mislead and deceive their millions of customers into buying a product they didn't know they were buying? DirecTV tries to argue that the ads "sometimes" includes a disclaimer in the fine print, but "in other cases it was obscured by texts and pictures". So depending on which ad you saw, you might get some fine print that includes the details of the purchase. This is downright dirty marketing.
The bottom line is that DirecTV tricked their customers, causing them to buy a seemingly great product that would unknowingly cost them way more than they perceived. These customers were uninformed, partly due to the vague ad. This violates many ethical codes and will most likely result in the loss of many loyal customers. But on the other hand, customers should be more observant. They should research the product they are buying instead of going off of what they hear and see in a short 30 second ad. Consumers, put more thought into your purchases, and ALWAYS read the fine print.
Articles Cited:
(http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/11/news/companies/directv-false-advertising/index.html)
Supermarket Tabloids, such as the National Enquirer and Star Magazine, can be found in checkout lanes across the nation. There are big, bold letters pasted on the cover. They have intriguing, and often shocking headlines, drawing the customer in to buy a copy before they leave the checkout line. While these tabloids may be interesting to read, how much can you actually rely on the information being displayed? And, is it really okay for the tabloids to make such accusations?
The National Enquirer is notorious for their outlandish headlines, such as "Cher's Deathbed Tell-All". Although, there are no definite signs pointing to
her death in the near future. This article features "insider" information, which is not verified and unreliable. Anyone can be an insider if they claim to have a relationship with the person under the wrath of the tabloids. This insider said that Cher "has been so freaked out by her poor health that she wants to set the record straight before she dies." The insider goes on to predict the disclosure of Cher's "secret lesbian love life" and her "coming clean about her numerous plastic surgery procedures". This article could be mentally detrimental to a person reaching the age of 70. Displaying ones mortality for ones own gain is ethically wrong and nauseating.
Star Magazine is known for their celebrity gossip. Who better to talk about than the Kardashians? In one of the many recent headlines involving the Kardashian Klan, Star Magazine writes about "Kris Jenner Taking a Tragic Turn with 72 Pound Weight Gain". A "Kardashian source" estimates that "she gained 72lbs in the second half of 2015". They also discuss her "hitting the bottle again" and display a picture of her drinking a single class of wine at an event. A "tipster" said that "she couldn't keep up her healthier lifestyle." How accurate is this information? They make it seem as if she has a drinking problem, however, in the picture displayed it is clear that it was taken through a window at a social event, where a glass of wine would be common. Especially since there is a man holding a glass next to her. The article is also riddled with images exploiting her weight gain. Star clearly is blowing pictures out of proportion and making her out to be a drunk, as well as shaming her for her body.
Yes, it is was ethically wrong to make possible false claims on Cher, and exploiting her mortality. It is also wrong to portray Kris Jenner as a drunk and body shaming her. However, this is being done legally as far as the tabloids lawyers are concerned. These awful headlines and articles clearly violate most peoples morals, but, we're buying. These headlines are aimed toward the public. They talk about things we are interested in and are continuing to profit out of consumers thirst for gossip. So, what's really the problem?
Articles Cited:
(http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/cher-dying-scandals-secrets-national-enquirer/)
(http://starmagazine.com/photos/kris-jenner-weight-gain-depressed-meltdown-kuwtk/photo/259253/)
