Case Study Mid Term - Media

LEC 1 case studies and Furlong What is a case study? ● “... a particular individual, program, or event is studied in depth for a defined period of time.” Why? ● “...because it’s unique or exceptional qualities can promote understanding.” Source: Leedy & Ormond, 2010 Major weakness: ● It’s one case, can fall into anecdote versus data. ● “...we cannot be sure findings are generalizable to other situations.” ● BUT... works really well for answering “how” and “why” questions. E.g. Covering Olympic figures The Olympic media experience ● Blurry editorial lines; how neutral am I? ● Strong sense of nationalism ● Closer relationship with sources ● Grueling days; lots of pressure ● Strong sense of being a part of something big John Furlong, CEO VANOC ● Accomplished athlete, national squash ● champ ● Sits on corporate boards ● Honorary degrees ● Order of Canada ● $25,000 per speaking engagement Laura Robinson, freelance journalist ● Former international cyclist ● Freelance journalist ● Investigative focus Power and Hegemony “The authority, dominance, and influence of one group, nation, or society over another group, nation, or society; typically through cultural, economic, or political means.” Gramsci – Cultural Hegemony • Common sense as “conformist thinking:” the perspective of the elite is “beyond question...” it’s “natural and universal”. • E.g. Politicians, corporate executives, Olympic leaders Framing James Tankard: A media frame is “the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration.” Gramsci to Entman • A frame is “really the imprint of power -- it registers the identity of actors or interests that competed to dominate the text.” • And thus the news can exhibit “homogenous framing.” • Homogeneity shows up in stories with the same or similar storylines, told through the perspective of the dominant group. Lec 2 Sports ESPN and Concussions PROFITS, CORPORATE EXPECTATIONS, ESPN AND THE “LEAGUE OF DENIAL” CASE HISTORY OF DENIAL: ● NFL went after Dr. Bennet Omalu after 2005 report on Mike Webster. ● Denied there was an connection between concussions and long-term brain disease. ● Funded research of its own to challenge some of the findings. ● BUT...Started changing rules regarding hits to the head. ● Eventually began to pay out more than $1 Billion in claims; but faced “racenorming” controversy. NFL INFLUENCE ON ESPN? 2004: ESPN series “Playmakers” cancelled after commissioner complains to CEO. 2009: ESPN takes several days to report on Steeler QB Ben Roethlisberger’s sexual assault accusation. 2012: Understated response to Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky molestation case. 2015: ESPN fires commentators critical of NFL and commissioner. 2024: NFL considers buying an equity stake in ESPN. RECENT EXAMPLE: US COLLEGE SPORTS’ “DONOR COLLECTIVES” - ESPN signed a broadcast deal with the NCAA worth just under $1 Billion. According to a New York Times investigation, some college athletes are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. ESPN, not much coverage. REPORTING ON LEAGUE OF DENIAL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES “But given the league’s immense popularity and the heated demand from broadcasters to acquire rights to its games, few direct requests would have had to have been made, sports media experts said. Leagues know that broadcasters like ESPN are both journalistic and entertainment entities, and they are adept at exploiting the divisions between them.” FRAMES ANALYSIS OF ESPN.com ARTICLES ● Player injury ● Legal issues ● Harmful effects ● Risk acceptance FRAMES ANALYSIS MAJOR FINDING “Examination of the 446 articles in the study revealed that in ESPN.com articles, concussions are minimized, not medicalized. When articles contain information about concussions but they are situated within the larger discourse of injuries as a whole, readers may believe that concussions are less significant than they actually are.” SPORTS-MEDIA TENSION ● Sports media: Entertainment versus journalism versus promotion. ● “There’s no place for politics in sports.” ● “Game versus merchandise;” love of the game versus a “strict criteria of profit and loss” (Tamir, et al. 2015). ● Favorable sports coverage generates bigger audiences and more revenue. ● Public Relations plays a critical role: PR pros work to build fan base, manage coverage, boost profit. AGENDA SETTING: MCCOMBS AND SHAW Media agenda → Public’s agenda Theory that the media are responsible for establishing (much) of the “public ordering of priorities.” WHO SETS THE AGENDA FOR THE AGENDA SETTERS? - Public Relations officials for governments, corporations, sports teams, and special interest groups. - Key decision makers, executives at major media companies: “The media elite consists of middle- aged [white] males who attend the same conferences, banquets, and parties.” STUART HALL AND CORPORATE CONTROL ● Most sources of information are corporate. ● Hall says corporate control prevents many stories from being told. ● He says the issue isn’t what information is being presented, but whose. Lec 3 Sports Gambling and the Media Pre-history ▪ Jimmy the Greek as the face of Las Vegas betting. ▪ A lot of talk of odds. ▪ No mention of spreads, over-unders, or props. Sports and Gambling ▪ 1919 “Black Sox” scandal ▪ Point-shaving and basketball, 1950s to 1980. ▪ Pete Rose betting on baseball. ▪ Sports leagues opposed to legalized gambling until recently. OPPOSITION FADES ▪ Legalized fantasy sports gambling 2006 in US ▪ Proline in Canada ▪ New Jersey challenges ban to help its casinos ▪ Canadian law justified by loss of tax revenue Everyone loves gambling “Everyone:” Teams, leagues, media, gambling companies all linked ▪ Rogers and BCE (Bell) own 75% of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. ▪ Also TSN, CTV, CityTV, SportNet ▪ Also TheScore Bet ▪ Deals with PokerStars, FanDuel NFL Broadcasts • NBC’s Football Night in America/Sunday Night Football #1 • NFL accounts for 93 of top 100 broadcasts for audience in US in 2023 • NFL games more popular than ever Why the dominance? Forbes Magazine ▪ “...the availability of legalized wagering continues to grow.” ▪ “Another reason is the continued popularity and growth of fantasy football (another form of wagering).” ▪ “Another reason to keep viewers watching (especially if you are betting or in a fantasy league) were the amount of close scoring games.” Sports leagues have learned the power of agenda-setting First level agenda setting: ▪ Media essentially promote “objects” so that the public understands “the salience of the objects.” ▪ An object is “that thing towards which our attention is directed or the thing about which we hold opinion.” E.g. an issue or a topic. The leagues themselves can be seen as objects. Second level agenda-setting: ▪ Objects have attributes, “those characteristics and properties that fill out the picture of each object.” ▪ Second level sets the “salience of attributes.” What attributes do the media have in mind when they discuss the object? What aspects of the object are salient for the public? Agenda-setting, gambling, and the NFL • Gambling and its coverage add new “attributes” • I.E. Second level agenda- setting • How are the attributes made salient to the sports/betting public? Gwyneth PR celebrity Lec 4 Celebrity, Public Relations,Branded Content, and “Churnalism” CELEBRITY ▪ Based on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. ▪ “Celebrity ‘endorsement’ actually affects our brain chemistry.” ▪ Explains why companies “use celebrities to endorse their products,” and why “we listen to celebrities even when they lack credentials.” ▪ Often a key part of a public relations strategy What do we mean by “public relations?” Simple definition: Public relations is the practice of using communication strategies to build relationships between organizations (such as corporations, institutions and government) and the public. Jaigris Hodson: ▪ Economic pressure to lean on branded content, “advertorials.” ▪ It’s better for society when there’s a balance between PR and journalism. Suggests paying for more journalism is key; needs to be better resourced. Churnalism ▪ When media organizations simply republish, verbatim, material sent to them by marketing companies and campaign groups, that is by public relations representatives. ▪ “Public relations subsidy.” ▪ One study, up to 41 per cent of all news articles have some PR content. ▪ Examples from the United Kingdom: ▪ Daily Mail story: 98% copied and pasted. ▪ Story from The Times: 53% cut and pasted news release. Churnalism and social media ▪ Content written from social media sources. ▪ Content from other media sources. ▪ “Clickbait.” Back to Stuart Hall ▪ Most sources of information are corporate. ▪ Hall says corporate control prevents many stories from being told. ▪ He says the issue isn’t what information is being presented, but whose. Lec 5 TikTok and Misinfo Plushcare study: random sample of 500 videos - Had a structured approach to evaluate the content - Focused analysis on videos offering advice and tips Findings: 83.7% of mental health advice on tiktok is misleading; 14.2% of videos include content that could be potentially damaging - 100% of content for ADHD contained misleading information Only 9% of tiktokers advising on the platform had a relevant qualification Dietician-influencers - WHO: aspartame is ineffective for weight loss and possibly carcinogenic - American beverage, lobby group representing coke and pepsi paid 10 dicticians to challenge WHO - Eg. Steph Grasso, registered dietition told her 2.2 million followers on tiktok the WHO was putting clickbait based on low quality science Theoretical context: gatekeeping Influences on gatekeepers of legacy media - Market forces/corporate interests - Patriarchy - Colonialism - Hegemony - Professional standards - Ethics READINGS: 1. ESPN Quit Its Concussions Investigation With ‘Frontline’ Under Curious Circumstances - What happened? ESPN and "Frontline" were working together on a big project about football and head injuries. Then ESPN suddenly decided to quit. - What was the project? A documentary and articles about how the NFL (football league) handles concussions and brain damage in players. - Why is this important? Football players can get serious brain injuries from playing, and people want to know if the NFL is doing enough to protect them. - Why did ESPN quit? ESPN says it’s because they didn’t control the project and didn’t want their logo on it. But some people think ESPN was pressured because they have a big business deal with the NFL. - What does this mean? Some people worry that ESPN is avoiding tough stories about the NFL to keep their business relationship good. This could mean fewer honest investigations about problems in sports. - What happens next? "Frontline" is still making the documentary, and ESPN reporters who worked on it are still part of ESPN. But people wonder if ESPN will keep doing serious investigative sports stories. - 1. ESPN worked with PBS’s Frontline for over a year to find the connection between football and brain injuries which is a serious topic that truly impacts the health and safety of many of the players. But then suddenly, ESPN dropped out, saying it was because of "trademark issues.” Many people believed that the real reason was pressure from the NFL, which was one of ESPN’s biggest business partners. ESPN pays the NFL $1.9 billion every year for the rights to air Monday Night Football, making their partnership very important. This makes me think if ESPN even prioritized protecting its financial interests overexposing the truth. If a major sports media network like ESPN avoids difficult stories, it might show that money and partnerships are more important than the players safety and even reporting honestly and ethically. - 2. T NFL made a very controversial choice by putting Dr. Elliot Pellman who is a rheumatologist not a brain expert, in charge of managing concussions. This makes people wonder if the league even truly cares about player safety or if it’s just trying to downplay the issue. Thousands of retired players are suing the NFL for not protecting them from serious brain injuries, so a lot is at stake. The league’s decisions could end up damaging the trust of the players, fans, and also the public. If the NFL is seen as being more focused on protecting its own image and profits rather than focusing on the players who make the game possible in the first place, it could seriously harm its reputation in the long run. - 3. Investigative reporting in sports is hard to come by and also rare because its expensive, takes a lot of time and doesn’t always make money. Even though ESPN has the resources and ability to do more deeper stories, their decision to back out of the Frontline project just goes to show how business relationships like their partnership with the NFL can get in the way of covering serious and tough topics. When big media companies avoid these kinds of stories, important issues like player safety can often be ignored and overlooked. 2. The Online-Betting Boom Is Ruining Sports—and Lives - Sports betting is growing fast, especially online, and it’s making companies a lot of money. - Many young men are drawn to sports betting because it feels like a game of skill, similar to playing the stock market. - Betting apps are designed like stock-trading apps, making it easy to track bets like investments. - People are losing money—some even gamble instead of saving or investing. - Problem gambling is increasing, with more young people, even teenagers, getting addicted. - Gambling addiction is serious, leading to debt, stress, and even thoughts of suicide. - Gambling companies offer free money and bonuses to keep people betting. - Ontario’s self-exclusion program doesn't fully work because gamblers must block each website separately. - New technology is making betting easier and more tempting, using AI to track sports data and predict game outcomes. - The government benefits from gambling, making lots of tax money from it. - Some people want to stop gambling ads, but big profits make it hard to ban them. - Other provinces, like Alberta, want to copy Ontario’s gambling system to make money. - A former gambler, Phil, is trying to quit, but it’s tough because of all the tricks the industry uses to pull people back in. - 1. Online sports betting has become much bigger, especially in Ontario since 2022 when iGaming Ontario started. These gambling apps make it look like betting is based on skill like trading stocks. For example, platforms like the Score show statistics that make it feel like gamblers can predict the outcomes of games. But the truth it, it’s all a gamble, and most people end up losing money. Many people are now spending more money on gambling than on things like saving or investing which is leading to serious problems like debt. - 2. More people especially young men are becoming addicted to gambling. Since online sports betting became available, there’s been a huge increase in calls for help from people who have gambling problems. Some of them are as young as 16. These people often lose all their money, end up deep in debt, and struggle with mental health issues. Even small wins can make them feel hopeful causing them to keep gambling. It’s like a cycle where people keep getting pulled back in which makes it harder to stop. - 3. There are too many gambling ads especially during sports games, and they are often aimed at younger people. These ads can make gambling seem cool with celebrities endorsing them and because of this, groups like Ban Ads for Gambling want stricter rubles for gambling ads. Some people in the government are trying to stop gambling ads from targeting kids or being too tempting but there is resistance because the gambling industry is powerful and brings in a lot of money. It’s hard to find a balance between stopping harmful ads and keeping the money flowing into the economy. Episode 6, Season 4, “VIP,” of the “Against the Rules Podcast.” - 1. In the podcast, it talks about how people in places like New York City often act differently because of their social status. Some people pretend to be rich or successful, even if they’re not, just to fit in. For example, they might giggle a lot or act careless to seem like they have money or come from a wealthy family. This shows how people sometimes act in ways that aren’t true to themselves just to blend into a certain group. It’s like they’re pretending to be someone they’re not just to feel accepted. - 2. The podcast also points out how having more money can make people feel more confident and carefree. On the other hand, people who don’t have as much money might try to act the same way, but it’s not as easy for them. The difference in wealth can make people feel insecure about how they come across to others. People with more money often seem more relaxed and less worried about the future, which can make others feel less confident especially if they don’t have the same financial stability. - 3. There’s also some humor in the podcast about the weird things that really rich people do because they don’t have to worry about money. For example, one speaker hoked about how rich people never pack up leftovers or take toilet paper home from public bathrooms, which is something most people would never do. It shows how the rich sometimes forget the struggles that others face because they don’t experience those challenges. It just goes to show even though it’s a small thing, it shows how people with more money don’t always understand how important those little things are to others like taking food home to simply avoid wasting it. 3. Caulfield, T. (2015), Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: When Celebrity Culture and Science Clash, - 1. This chapter of the reading shows that it is still not clear whether non-celiac gluten sensitivity is something most people really experience. Some studies say that around 6% of people may be sensitive to gluten but other research also suggests that it is much lower around 0.5%. This shows that the science on gluten sensitivity is still very much in its early stages. I think this uncertainty is very frustrating because when people hear about gluten being bad, they automatically just assume it is true for everyone. But in reality, the science is not strong enough to make those kinds of broad claims and assumptions and it leaves a lot of people confused about what they should eat. - 2. The reading also talks about how many people feel better when they go gluten free because they are also eating healthier foods like more fruits and vegetables. I have noticed that when I eat more whole foods, like vegetables and lean proteins, I feel better overall, not just by avoiding certain foods. If we’re too focused on one thing, like gluten, instead of the bigger picture, eating a well-balanced diet that is good for our overall health. If people started focusing on just eating more whole foods, then maybe they would feel better without having to cut out gluten completely. - 3. The chapter also brings in how celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Miley Cyrus promote gluten free diets, but without scientific evidence to support these claims. From my own experience. I have seen many people start a gluten free diet just because they saw it being recommended by a famous person, even though they don’t have gluten sensitivity. Celebrities have a lot of influence and it is easy to understand why people might trust them more than scientific research, even if they don’t have the expertise. I think this can be dangerous because it leads to people following trends without understanding the real science behind them. It Is important to think critically about health advice especially from celebrities or influencers such as on TikTok and always look for reliable research instead. 4. 1. TikTok has become a major source of mental health advice, but the article says a shocking 83.7% of the information on it is misleading. The apps algorithm tracks what users watch and interact with and then keeps showing similar videos related to that. This can make it seem like the content is personalized and accurate when really it isn’t. many TikTok videos encourage self-diagnosis, leading people to think and believe that they have conditions like anxiety, ADHD, or depression without seeing a specialist or doctor. This is risky because self-diagnosing can lead to unnecessary stress or even incorrect treatments. I remember watching a video about high functioning anxiety and it made me wonder if I had it, until I realized the symptoms were just common stress reactions. This made me think about how easily misinformation can spread when it comes in a quick and also engaging way like on TikTok. 5. 2. Another big issue is the article states is that 91% of TikTok’s mental health influencers have no medical training. They often share advice that sounds convincing, but it is based on personal opinions rather than actual scientific facts. An even more concerning thing that the article mentions is that only 1% of the videos include disclaimers saying that the creator is not actually a professional. This is very dangerous because people may follow incorrect advice thinking it is trustworthy. I always see videos on my TikTok page saying, “if you get bored easily, you definitely have ADHD” and things along those lines. But statements like these are misleading because boredom can have many causes and sometimes no causes at all. 6. 3. One of the reasons why TikTok has become so popular for mental health advice is that professional help is usually too expensive for many people. Therapy can cost a lot per session which makes it inaccessible for people without insurance or good insurance. Because of this, people turn to free content on social media. As the article mentions, the hashtag #MentalHealth has billions of views proving how much people rely on TikTok for support. Even though these videos might feel comforting, they are not a replacement for real medical help/care. People comment on videos on TikTok all the time saying, “I can’t afford therapy, so this video is my therapy.” It just goes to show how much people want help but don’t have access to it. But it also shows that social media can be both helpful and harmful at the same time because it can spread awareness, but it can also spread misinformation.