Blame the Media...but Not Too Much
Politics
So everyone I know, liberal or conservative, bashes the traditional media for various reasons, which are, of course, very good reasons: bias, innaccuracy, sensationalism, poor priorities, etc. I can't say I disagree with it, but I think people may not think of the consequences of constant generalized media bashing, and that of downgrading the esteem people have in journalists. People seem to be turning to bloggers, news 'analysis' tv shows like O'Reilly or the Daily Show, or whatever. I think it's important that these people are not, for the most part, investigative reporters. They take what's out there, put some outrage or comedy on it to make it interesting, and re-tell the tale. I think, as newspapers and whatnot are on the decline, people are forgetting to read the actual news in the first place. Me included, unfortunately.
When this happens, a lot less resources go into actually investigating things, which is what the press is there to begin with! Remember the term 'fourth estate'? A healthy press - meaning the people who actually spend money on research and investigation, is vital to a democracy because it uncovers corruption and lies of people in power! It's supposed to do that, it's supposed to be negative, and its supposed to be oppositional the the government, as even someone like Karl Rove has mentioned!
So the press is being guilty of making little things into big things? Into putting Natalie Holloway or other pretty white girls on the front page of the paper while there's a fucking war on? Yes! But this is the crap that sells nowadays. There is a hard reality that maybe news has to do this shit to actually stay in business. My friend Julie brought up a good point in that she asks "Which came first? Did people get spoiled and turned to alternative sources of news? Or did the behaviour of the media turn them off, and then they went looking for other sources?" I didn't have a response then, but as is blog fashion, I am thinking to generalize my own experience to everyone: I sure didn't stop really looking at news because it turned me off, but the outrage and jokes of the 'analysis' shows are so much more exhillerating and sexy to me, which is why I turned to them. So did many people do the same thing? I guess I think so...
There is another loss here too: There is a quote from some Senator.."Everyone is entitled to thier own opinions, but not thier own facts". Well, as a result of people skipping the news, I don't think that's true anymore. 99% of climate scientists say that global warming is happening. Hard news reports this. If you watch news analysis shows, liberal ones show it as being true, conservative ones as it not being true. So, who knows what's true? It's just a political issue now.
I know it seems I am thinking of this almost in terms of religious orthodoxy. 'THERE MUST BE ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, UNQUESTIONED, OR THE WORLD WILL FALL TO PIECES'. I am aware that the 'hard news' media is full of liars as well. And maybe the whole world isn't turning to bloggers and news analysis just because I seem to be. (I sure hope not). But I think maybe we should consider the costs of generalized media bashing a little bit, and to be on guard that we use criticism to make the media better rather than destroy it.
Politics
So everyone I know, liberal or conservative, bashes the traditional media for various reasons, which are, of course, very good reasons: bias, innaccuracy, sensationalism, poor priorities, etc. I can't say I disagree with it, but I think people may not think of the consequences of constant generalized media bashing, and that of downgrading the esteem people have in journalists. People seem to be turning to bloggers, news 'analysis' tv shows like O'Reilly or the Daily Show, or whatever. I think it's important that these people are not, for the most part, investigative reporters. They take what's out there, put some outrage or comedy on it to make it interesting, and re-tell the tale. I think, as newspapers and whatnot are on the decline, people are forgetting to read the actual news in the first place. Me included, unfortunately.
When this happens, a lot less resources go into actually investigating things, which is what the press is there to begin with! Remember the term 'fourth estate'? A healthy press - meaning the people who actually spend money on research and investigation, is vital to a democracy because it uncovers corruption and lies of people in power! It's supposed to do that, it's supposed to be negative, and its supposed to be oppositional the the government, as even someone like Karl Rove has mentioned!
So the press is being guilty of making little things into big things? Into putting Natalie Holloway or other pretty white girls on the front page of the paper while there's a fucking war on? Yes! But this is the crap that sells nowadays. There is a hard reality that maybe news has to do this shit to actually stay in business. My friend Julie brought up a good point in that she asks "Which came first? Did people get spoiled and turned to alternative sources of news? Or did the behaviour of the media turn them off, and then they went looking for other sources?" I didn't have a response then, but as is blog fashion, I am thinking to generalize my own experience to everyone: I sure didn't stop really looking at news because it turned me off, but the outrage and jokes of the 'analysis' shows are so much more exhillerating and sexy to me, which is why I turned to them. So did many people do the same thing? I guess I think so...
There is another loss here too: There is a quote from some Senator.."Everyone is entitled to thier own opinions, but not thier own facts". Well, as a result of people skipping the news, I don't think that's true anymore. 99% of climate scientists say that global warming is happening. Hard news reports this. If you watch news analysis shows, liberal ones show it as being true, conservative ones as it not being true. So, who knows what's true? It's just a political issue now.
I know it seems I am thinking of this almost in terms of religious orthodoxy. 'THERE MUST BE ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, UNQUESTIONED, OR THE WORLD WILL FALL TO PIECES'. I am aware that the 'hard news' media is full of liars as well. And maybe the whole world isn't turning to bloggers and news analysis just because I seem to be. (I sure hope not). But I think maybe we should consider the costs of generalized media bashing a little bit, and to be on guard that we use criticism to make the media better rather than destroy it.
posted by Toddypoo at 9:09 AM
8 Comments:
If the media is stumbling it is responsible for it's own demise.
News paper editors and News room producers look to create serial stories that they can package and sell to viewers. They have become like marketing firms and television producers in that they are guessing at what their audience will respond to; hoping that if they generate a cool headline or convince the public they should follow the next Neverland trial they can keep their circulation up, there by keeping the cost for advertising space up.
They are being bought out; catering to big business advertisers just like the Republican and Democratic parties.
No pity for the press. With a couple exceptions, they are failing at their once noble mission.
eat it.
Excellent engagement, about time you lazy fucktard.
We all know how much righteous anger can accomplish *cough> NADER /cough>*, but I don't think the total destruction of the news media is really the end result we want. They need people to read it. So if it takes the Neverland trial (and you know he's guilty) to hook people, then that's what it takes. I think it's people's laziness that dumbs down the media, not the other way around...
"I think it's people's laziness that dumbs down the media, not the other way around..."
by people you mean the public. As humans (especially spoiled, priviledged humans) we all have the ability to be lazy and self centered. But don't forget that journalists, editors and reporters are all people too. And they signed on to a profession that requires a certain level of accountability and responsibility. It's not unreasonable to hold 'the news' to a higher standard...they accepted that challenge by entering the profession.
So, I think they should be held MORE accountable for their laziness and self-centered motivations than the average joe.
This is one of those things where I cannot disagree with what people are saying, but think people should moderate thier actions... I don't think there is anything wrong with specific media criticisms, it's the writing off of all media, based on poor work of 1% of stories...
Here's the cycle my dear compatriot,
People are elected to run the country.
In order to hold those people accountable we "report" on their actions and the "truth" of what they are saying; thereby creating the media.
We the people, as news readers and invested citizens, must hold the media accountable so that it doesn't get distracted from its purpose in this country. What happens if we don't?
I understand your reasons for being all nicey-nice and sweet to the media machine, I just think it is mis-guided, like the current mind set of our news sources. Note, this is not the same as writing off the media, in fact in order to place these judgements one must invest further into media sources...or read a blogger who is.
Stop being a Jelly fish.
What we are disagreeing on is I think is what constitutes 'holding the media accountable'. You can stop reading a particular newspaper, or change the channel, but we should be wary about substituting blogs and analysis shows for traditional media, because they are not investigative journalists. I don't really believe that objectivity is that hard to come by if one tries, it is just too boring for people...So the item is a call to recognize that media is responding to peoples demands for excitement, in order to survive and pay for objective investigative journalism as best they can...
Jellyfish? maybe a Man'o'war!
I believe one of the biggest factors that contributes to our confusion / forgotten objectivity is that there is so much information to process and in which a big part of the information may actually be just noise/junk. (This is why I usually tend to read just the headlines , because it simply states what happened, where it happened, and who (possibly) might have done it. Of course this much info is not enough to answer why it happened after all, but then that is the part that needs %100 objectivity which means that I should try to figure it out instead of digesting the crap the media imposes on us. This is a great responsibility on my part and this is as close as I could get to being neutral.
I can see why Calcavecchia and Julie are being so tough on Media, but Todd sure has a point. I think its equivalent to the number of movies that come out every year, not all are good but its upto ones descretion to pick and choose. And come to think of it, movies vs. media comparison is not so far fetched especially considering all the ratings etc that the news corporations are so desperately after. They feed to the bases, whats sensational sells and so it goes!
However, there should be some arbiter that should draw the lines to the extent of "sensationalism", and I think thats where the people should come in. Boycott of junk media etc should happen on a large scale! :) I dont think we can ever expect true "objectivity" from the media only because it is after all a human conduit and the objectivity is bound to get distorted!
Post a Comment
<< Home