Recently, more and more people tend to shift from the traditional media of the past century – the TV and the newspaper – to more modern and instant news sources - the internet. Nevertheless, with every media it is important to be constantly aware. Broadcasting’s main interest is by far not to play an educative role as John Reith, the managing director of BBC in 1920s, once promoted. It is a social cement, but its main purpose is profit. What is unprofitable must be disposed of immediately. Ever since the 1980s, when big corporations bought the ownership of broadcasting companies, we – the readers – should be aware that objectivity became only an occasional mistress of the profit-motive. And the audience reacted to this change. According to the Pew Research Center in 1985, 35% of Americans felt that news stories were often inaccurate. In 2009 the number increased to 63%. In terms of fairness, more than half (60%) of respondents said that news organizations tend to favor one side when dealing with political and social issues.
For the full report see http://people-press.org/report/543/.
Is there even a chance that news reports are unbiased and objective? The next time you read or watch the news, try asking: Can newspapers provide objective reporters? How are the reports conducted? Who asks the questions? Does he or she have a hidden agenda? Who chooses the articles that go to print? How are the choices made? Who makes these decisions? What corporation owns the media channel and what might the owner’s agenda be? What sort of advertising is included in this media channel and what connections does this imply?
I understand that by the time we answer all these questions there will be hardly any time for the actual news. Thus, as people tend to rely less on TV as their main source of information (due to issues mentioned above), they turn to the internet in the hope of finding greater reliability in the abundant sources that internet provides us with.
It is true that the variety of sources the internet offers seem to look credible and better than regular news casting. However, “the more the merrier” does not really apply in this case. Most people follow their favorite sites, bloggers and sources. In time they develop their own network of information sources that they follow regularly, without even knowing that they ‘cherry pick’ affirmation of their own beliefs. Indeed, it is human nature to seek out confirmation. Nevertheless, with the high proliferation of internet sources it is easy to fall into this stereotype. This phenomenon, which Elizabeth Kolbert (2009) called cyber-polarization, might result in the radicalization of the society, simply because searching for only the ‘right’ way of reporting certain problems naturally leads to accepting these views. Furthermore, favorite web pages can easily link to more radical views and thus result in higher polarization.
To avoid cyber-polarization, one should check more sources, especially those representing opposing views. And after seeing what both sides have to say, one can make up one’s mind and not adopt mimic somebody’s views or affirmations.
Sources:
Kolbert E., The Things People Say, The New Yorker, Nov 2, 2009
Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low. Rep. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 13 Sept. 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2010
Video:
The Real News featured on PBS Foreign Exchange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVeNiVdli48&feature=related
Unfortunately, these days, I feel that I am cynical about most media sources, whether they be traditional or new sources found on the internet. But you bring up an interest point, Luci -- which is how when given the choice, we do read the news that will reflect our own already established opinions. It's true, we all crave affirmation, and in this way it is hard to make yourself read media sources that you know you will disagree with. But really, we should challenge our preconceived notions and branch other to hear other people's take on things, especially important things dealing with what is happening around us. Clearly, there is the problem of credibility of internet sources. Blogs can be great (and it is so nice that you include sources - and legitimate ones at that - to show where your information is coming from and why you feel the way that you do), but so often I feel that this is not the case and people read anything and accept it as fact. Of course there is a problem of accepting corporate media as completely true as well. I had a professor my freshman year of undergrad who told us the very first class that one of his lectures would be untrue. The idea was that you should not simply accept everything an "authority" figure says, whether that be a teacher or the news media offers. Thanks for reminding us that we should question all news sources out there and really take a look at who is telling us what in order to get a fair sense of what is really going on.
ReplyDeleteI will here have to agree with both of you since my opinion is as well that the media, for the most are biased and are in a way implanting subtilely telling us what to thing and what to believe.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that each individual has his own personality and points of views and it is in his nature, to seek approval and confirmation from others and that is where the various media sources come in handy.
Quantity if you ask me does not mean quality on the contrary in most cases it is exactly the opposite because people tend to say a lot of stuff, commit/use a lot of fallacies in order to play with people's minds and make them believe what they wrote in the article or shown in a video. Words are a very powerful tool of deception which people, in my opinion often abuse of and it is because of this that the only person we should always trust is ourselves and especially when it comes to media we have to have a glance of doubt.