Saturday, November 14, 2009

Can somebody prof-ready this essay about TV regulation for me?

Regulating TV viewers


The American culture has a unique and interesting concept of what society should look like and what television is all about. Americans spend two to three hours a day watching TV. What dose this mean? It means companies will pay millions of dollar for a thirty- second ad just to get the audience to buy their products. With so much money generated in less then a minute, broadcasting company will have to contribute money into television shows. With more popular TV shows means that they can charge their client more money for television ad for that particular showing. With competition looming for higher rating there has been a serious step back into the admiration of what TV shows use to be like. In today television innovation, with more channel then you can count, networking companies are developing more innovated ways to attract audiences to watch a show for higher rating. But the new concept that was put into play in the 21st century has had a twisted effect on how our society evolved. In today’s entertainment world we are seeing more sex and violence in the mainstream of shows and movies. With this swift in the culture mainframe we need to have a more centralized regulation process of what can be shown on television. “The First Amendment sets up a clear-cut independence of press from government as the journalistic principle most vital to the American people. But the existing regulatory approach to broadcasting offers exactly the opposite formula: government guidance and government rules to protect the American people from independent journalism. The First Amendment idea and the regulation


idea are mortal enemies.” says television journalist Bill Monroe observed in a 1984 speech


The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) is in charge of regulating the flow of information and broadcasting networks. But there are some other few flaws on the independent government funded commission. It lacks some crucial authority and enforcement to regulate the mainstream of information that is being broadcast. The government should put more roles and legal rights into the FCC to better itself in regulating the flow of information, especially television and radio. The Federal government should have more control of the regulation and should incorporate the FCC into its inner branches. By giving more roles to the FCC, the government can better regulate network showing and audio recording from radios and satellites broadcasters.


With violent and sexual sense more prevalent on television, broadcasting networks are introducing corruption into the minds of children. With shows such as nip/tuck and Desperate Housewives becoming increasingly popular due to its portrait of sex, drugs, and violent, and with more popular shows that involve those sorts of pagonistic viewpoints to attract audience members not to the shows itself but to live those kind of lifestyles. A study by Jeffrey Johnson a psychiatric at Columbia University, “found that 14-year-old boys who watched three hours or more of TV a day were about twice as likely as those who watches less then a hour a day to commit crime by early adulthood.” (Richard Land)


The most variable group of television viewers are children and teens. “The average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often demonstrated and promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want.” (Kids Health) By subjecting them to sex and violent we are putting a sophist mindset in their thinking and behaviour pattern to make them come to the conclusion that these types of behaviours are okay. Networking companies understand that in order to get higher rating you need to incorporate sex and violent into your shows. “Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows.” (Kids Health)


The argument for the networking companies is that by subjecting them to government regulations the government are taking away their freedom of speech. The freedom of speech that the networking companies are talking about is the freedom to show soft-sex sense and more gruesome violence sense to their viewers. They know that a good portion of their audience are children and teenagers, but they still continue to show more embolic sense, which studies have shown to have negative effects on younger viewers. Government regulation is key to reducing the demagogy of networking companies over television viewers. The government proxy of the FCC will have sticker regulations on what is to be air on television. This will reduce the damages of expulsive materials shown on television that are variable to the younger audiences

Can somebody prof-ready this essay about TV regulation for me?
I'm just gonna repost yours with my changes in CAPS.. k?!





Can somebody proOf-ready this essay about TV regulation for me?





Regulating TV viewers





The American culture has a unique and interesting concept of what society should look like and what television is all about. Americans spend two to three hours a day watching TV. What DOES this mean? It TELLS US THAT companies will pay millions of DOLLARS for a thirty- second ad to get the audience to buy their products. With so much money generated in less then a minute, broadcasting COMPANIES will have to contribute money into television shows. THE MORE POPULAR shows ARE ABLE TO charge their clientS more money for EACH television ad. With competition looming for higher rating there has been a serious step back into the admiration of what TV shows useD to be like.


In todayS television innovation with more channelS thAn you can count, networking companies are developing more innovated ways to attract audiences to watch showS AND RECEIVE higher ratingS. But the new concept that was put into play in the 21st century has had a twisted effect on how our society evolved.


In today’s entertainment world we are seeing more sex and violence in the mainstream of shows and movies. With this swift CHANGE in the cultureS' mainframe we need to have a more centralized regulation process of what can be shown on television. “The First Amendment sets up a clear-cut independence of press from government as the journalistic principle most vital to the American people. But the existing regulatory approach to broadcasting offers exactly the opposite formula: government guidance and government rules to protect the American people from independent journalism. The First Amendment idea and the regulation idea are mortal enemies.” says television journalist Bill Monroe observed in a 1984 speech


The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) is in charge of regulating the flow of information and broadcasting networks but there are other flaws In the independent governmentS funded commission. It lacks some crucial authority and enforcement to regulate the mainstream of information that is being broadcast. The government should PLAY A ROLE IN ENFORCING legal rights into the FCC to better itself in regulating the flow of information, especially television and radio. The Federal government should have more control of the regulation and should incorporate the FCC into its inner branches. By giving more roles to the FCC the government can better regulate network showing and audio recording from radios and satellites broadcasters.


With violent and sexual sense more prevalent on television, broadcasting networks are introducing corruption into the minds of children.


With shows such as nip/tuck and Desperate Housewives becoming increasingly popular due to its portrait of sex, drugs, and violenCE that involve those sorts of pagonistic viewpoints to attract audience members not to the shows itself but to live those kind of lifestyles. A study by Jeffrey Johnson a psychiatric at Columbia University, “found that 14-year-old boys who watched three hours or more of TV a day were about twice as likely as those who watch less then a hour a day to commit crime by early adulthood.” (Richard Land)


The most variable AGEgroup of television viewers are children and teens. “The average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often demonstrated and promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want.” (Kids Health) By subjecting them to sex and violenCE, we are putting a sophist mindset in their thinking THAT ALLOWS them come to the conclusion that these types of behaviours are okay.


Networking companies understand that in order to get higher rating you need to incorporate sex and violenCE into your shows. “Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows.” (Kids Health)


The argument for the networking companies is that by subjecting them to government regulations the government IS taking away their freedom of speech. The freedom of speech that the networking companies are talking about is the freedom to show MORE SKIN AND SEXUAL INUENDOS and gruesome violence to their viewers. They know that a good portion of their audience are children and teenagers, but they still continue to show more embolic sense****I DONT KNOW IF THAT IS USED CORECTLY BUT DUNNO HOW TO FIX IT****, which studies have shown to have negative effects on younger viewers. Government regulation is key to reducing the demagoRy of networking companies over television viewers. The government proxy of the FCC will have sticker regulations on what is to be airED on television. This will reduce the damages of expulsive materials shown on television that are variable to the younger audiences





****IF THIS IS THE ENDING THEN YOU NEED MORE OF A CONCLUDING SENTENCE OR TWO HERE****
Reply:how about you do that yourself.. this isnt a ' post something you want so we can do the work for you website' not to be obnoxious, becuase im always willing to answer a question or help to the best of my ability. But this is just absurd.





-(try running it with spell check on Microsoft word. or use Mac OS X's Summary Service [if you have a mac])





-ken
Reply:you want people from the general cultures and groups section to proof read your essay have you not read some of the idiotic things people say on here? This is not the place to have your essay proof read I would take it to one of my professors or fellow students or the librarian anywhere is better than here just giving you some good advice lol
Reply:typo-What dose this mean?





plural(broadcast company)-With so much money generated in less then a minute, broadcasting company





Its a great paper with a good, supported message!


go back over and check for typos because I noticed a couple, but thats the only problem!


No comments:

Post a Comment