Hello out there! Again, apologies for not posting often. I have been in a crazy rush to get everything done before I go back up to my college. I’m really excited for this upcoming year, since I’ll be taking a US Government course, and my first real communications course (journalism woohoo). It’s going to be a good year (I hope), so I’m pumped!
I also discovered I’ll be living in a single, which always makes things a little nice. I don’t have to worry about waking my roommate up, or making a mess, or forgetting to buy the milk. It’s all on me, and I kinda like it that way.
Plus, more space to do cosplay stuff.
In any case, the topic of this post is something close to my heart and a little longer (I think) than what I normally write. Enjoy.
Currently Listening For: my train to stop at my station.
Currently Reading: The Complete Works of Edgar Allen Poe
Currently Drinking: Pepsi
Currently Playing: Nothing
Currently Watching : Pandora Hearts, 30 Rock, Boston Legal
It is common knowedge that I am madly addicted to my blackberry. So it should not come as a surprise that my mp3 player is on my blackberry (as are my blog posts, stories, phone books and other works). Recently, however, my blackberry curve decided to commit suicide (I do not feed it often, but abuse the poor thing daily). Because of this, I’ve resorted to using my as-reliable,-but can’t-hold-a-micro-sd blackberry (an 8700), which cannot play music because it is incapable of holding memory. This has left me to options on how to entertain myself while en route to work.
The first is my nintendo ds, which is not charged. My other option, therefore, is to read. Today, I decided to read several short stories from one of my favorite short story authors (surprise, he’s American!), Edgar Allen Poe. And here is where we jump to the topic of today.
Journalism.
Or, in a broader scope, “the media.”
Edgar Allen Poe wrote a short story entitled “How to write a Blackwood article” about a person who learns how to write a Blackwood article. In the short story, the narrator essentially says that everyone dreams of writing a Blackwood article because they are highly regarded. However, she learns that these articles are full of fluff and roundabout messages that mean nothing. In fact, her teacher encourages her to use big, meaningless words to sound important and to relate everything to existentalism or something philosophical.
This got me thinking (doi) about my media. And, thus, my result:
— — — — —
I am always extremly bothered when someone complains about how the media is some secret government way of spreading filtered news to the sheeple of America (the man, they’re after us… man). For one, the government is not secretly oppressing us or putting us down. And for two, not every damn piece of America is a conspiracy theory. Odd things happen. That’s why they’re odd.
The more common complaint, however, is that the media will often put a spin on their information (politics), or that the media will sensationalize and drag out worthless news (tabloids, ect). And I agree, they do. But it’s not because they’re hell-bent on brainwashing us.
It’s because we want it.
Let me elaborate. Gathering news is expensive. There is travel cost, communication costs, sending it out, putting it together, and making it known to the public. This cost money, which comes from the public who watches. Therefore, it’s in the news best interest to publish or show what the majority of the public wants.
A clear example is the Michael Jackson stuff (honestly, I bank a lot of the tabloid stuff in a similar category, but this example is recent). I’ve heard plenty of people complain about how it’s drawn out, and milked to death. But, many of those people still research about him, and read articles about him and TALK about him. Even if it’s a disgruntled “I can’t believe he’s still famous,” it’s still TALKING about him. When you talk to other people, then you have to link to it anyway to explain yourself, thus giving attention to it.
This goes for a lot of celebrity news or reality TV shows. A lot of it attribute it to the media milking out news and trying the pull the most, but a lot of it comes from people who still want it (and, thus, demand it).
News broadcastings are also sensationalized in political talk. Look at Rachel Maddon, Glen Beck and other “pundits’ of politics. All of them use tactics to engage the viewer to watch more, like having crazy visual examples, and inviting guests for the purpose of harassing him/her, rather than asking meaningful questions.
But, of course, this is highly more entertaining than actually getting the news. A ton of people bitched and talked and complained about the senate meetings, address of the president and other things, but no one really takes the time to sit down and watch it. And, damn, these hearings and such ARE readily accessible to the public. The government does not hide this (unless broadcasting it live still means they’re hidden).
In any case, the bigger complaints about news in politics (that have recently delved into other news topics) is about how news reports are politically charged and, therefore, provide inadequate news reporting.
And, again, I say it is because this is what we want. There is a reason why MSNBC and Fox News are two of the biggest news broadcasting shows in America. Sensation and exaggeration will bring ratings, which is how these companies do so well. You laugh, because *insert ridiculous news cast here* is just too plum stupid to be seen as credible, but it’s quite an insight to what kinds of people watch what. And there are so many options, there’s bound to be one that fits your political viewpoints and interests.
And if you ARE that against a particular newscast, I’d file it under “political intolerance” moreso than a newscast being biased.
But really, what it boils down to is “if you don’t like it, don’t read/watch it.” And if you want an unbiased opinion, check out BBC. Do your own research. Nothing good in life is free. What makes the news any different?
Another complaint-on-a-complaint about how news reports are politically charged is that a newscast should not “mix opinion and fact to influence the reader.” What this says to me is that the complainer cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion because he/she has not been taught (and/or did not pay attention in elementary school), or the viewer is simply too LAZY to know what an opinion is. It is NOT that difficult.
The one problem I have with newscasting is when the news outright lies. For example, saying this is the highest unemployment rate in the last 50 years (which it’s not). And even then, I do the research to know that they’re wrong. The public should be activly engaging in watching the news, rather than simply viewing it, and then blaming it for silly things that can be easily avoided with a little thinking.
On a semi-related note, the Republican news reports arn’t the only side that are responsible for adding opinion to news. The Democrats, for example, were over-sensationalizing the phrase “death panel” and talk about what the almighty President Obama is eating for breakfast (this is an obvious exaggeration, for all you nitpickers). And there are tons of resources that are Democrat-inclined. Reddit, for example, is very democratic, even though they claim to be unbiased because it “comes from the net” (Freedom From the Press my ass).
The news is news. When something NEW comes out, everyone’s going to have an opinion on something. What makes these newscasters and journalist any different? In the end, they’re still human. And as much as they (we?) don’t want to add our opinions to our work, it will happen. Everyone does it in every day life. Journalism just happens to be in the business of topics everyone has an opinion on.
Tl, dr: don’t bitch on the messanger cause he has his own opinion.
>>>
Another complaint-on-a-complaint about how news reports are politically charged is that a newscast should not “mix opinion and fact to influence the reader.” What this says to me is that the complainer cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion because he/she has not been taught (and/or did not pay attention in elementary school), or the viewer is simply too LAZY to know what an opinion is. It is NOT that difficult.
<<>>
When something NEW comes out, everyone’s going to have an opinion on something. What makes these newscasters and journalist any different? In the end, they’re still human.
<<<
Who's complaining that they have opinions? It's when they mix in their opinions, either intentionally or unintentionally, with the facts. If it's intentional, then it's dishonest to call that the news. If it's unintentional, then it's a fault of their own that they can't separate their own opinions from the facts. We expect people in certain jobs to do certain things. To filter out their subjectiveness when reporting is not a skill that's superhuman.
What a strange HTML parser. It eliminated my first response.
>>>
Another complaint-on-a-complaint about how news reports are politically charged is that a newscast should not “mix opinion and fact to influence the reader.” What this says to me is that the complainer cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion because he/she has not been taught (and/or did not pay attention in elementary school), or the viewer is simply too LAZY to know what an opinion is. It is NOT that difficult.
<<<
That's like saying that, if I complain about people cheating in board games, it's because I'm too inattentive to catch them cheating. If I was too lazy to notice where the opinion enters, how can I complain about it?
And as I said before, you're basically saying it's okay for the news to be bias because the PUBLIC (which is known to be lazy, stupid, and passionate regarding their areas of ignorance) should have the ADDITIONAL responsibility of distinguishing fact from opinion. The problem isn't if the complainer hasn't been taught properly in grade school, it's the fact that most other people weren't paying attention in the same lessons.
They should have the inherent ability to distinguish fact from opinion. I’d be hard pressed to find a person who can read a newspaper and can’t distinguish fact from fiction. If you’re not doing it, you’re not actively reading the newspaper and THUS, am letting the news go from one ear and out the other. It’s pure stupidity.
It’s like how I feel people who don’t know anything about politics and candidates in an election shouldn’t vote.
“They should have the inherent ability to distinguish fact from opinion.”
But, and I think you agree with me, they don’t. And as I said before, you can’t force them to. You CAN, however, shift responsibility.
“I’d be hard pressed to find a person who can read a newspaper and can’t distinguish fact from fiction. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#The_Onion_taken_seriously
But we were talking about opinion, not fiction.
“It’s like how I feel people who don’t know anything about politics and candidates in an election shouldn’t vote.”
I do too. In fact, it’s why I don’t vote.
The Onion is a satire newspaper. Satire and opinion are different.
Also, I don’t hold the newspapers responsible for writing news. I blame the people for being stupid enough to not being able to distinguish opinion and fact. I blame people for not taking an active THINKING role when reading the news. Anything you read needs some sort of cognitive effort to understand.
The Onion is a satire newspaper. Satire and opinion are different.
Okay, so you meant “opinion” there.
I think many people would have to actually put some effort into doing so. They would have to actually have to decide, “I’m going to see which parts of this is opinion,” rather than catching it as they read normally.
Also, I don’t hold the newspapers responsible for writing news. I blame the people for being stupid enough to not being able to distinguish opinion and fact. I blame people for not taking an active THINKING role when reading the news. Anything you read needs some sort of cognitive effort to understand.
You might as well blame the sky for raining when you don’t want it to, rather than the meteorologists for not predicting it correctly. The Public is not a thinking beast, and can’t really be blamed for its decisions in any influential manner, so what’s the point.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Jo on this one. As an adult who has been given the responsibility to be a citizen of the USA, you should be able to distinguish fact from opinion. The fact that the average adult can’t, is a bit distressing, however if you begin to impinge on a newscaster and the press’s ability to input their own words, then you begin to actually intercede with the First Amendment.
You’re right, to say it’s wrong for newscasters to. Be morally offended, but don’t expect anyone to agree, and also don’t think anyone should stop. You begin to walk towards a line in which you need to distinguish from fiction and fact, and who is to say when that line slowly begins to be crossed and you never notice. And that’s when censorship begins and we begin to lose our freedom as a citizen to express ourselves.
As for the Onion being taken seriously, that’s the left’s Church. Take the Church, an organization that preaches an ideal that believes in a supreme God. Within this ideal is the belief that God is unfailing, and his works is perfect. The conservatives often believe in this ideal, and will take a pastor’s word over a scientist’s anyday of the week. In this sense, the Onion is the same form. We take the Onion seriously because it is the same insanity, it couldn’t happen, but we laugh about it and read it anyway. The fallacy with that idea, and unlike the belief in God, is that the Onion begins to become eerily true, the ridiculous headlines that joked about an event occur, and are reported again as an article. This creates a validation in the Onion, which can be said for the liberal population, which the Church never has.
As for your unwillingness to vote, you sit on the fence and don’t believe in the system, and perhaps you might be right about this. However, the honest truth is that by sitting on the fence you don’t actually equalize anything, you don’t add anything. If you wanted to be truly fair, you’d vote for some absurd party, perhaps the independents. Why? Because by voting for someone, you take away a small almost infinitessimal percent of the vote that would belong to one of the two-party system (which would be a display of no confidence) but also fairly guarantee that you displayed your displeasure with the current candidates. Yes, there is a fallacy that you are voting for someone else, but in truth, if you don’t vote, you vote never counted, which also made everyone else’s vote count more. And if magically that independent candidate won, then technically you’ve been screwed, but you also voted for the guy you believed in most, if only because you’ve didn’t really believe in the others at all.
There should be a question mark at the end thar.
I have to agree with your post. Even being a middle-of-the-road liberal, I can see the blatant ridiculous love that the liberal press has for Obama. The most heinous offender is, in fact, Rolling Stone, who has their head so far up Obama’s behind that it is astounding. This country is so amazingly split down the middle these days that it is staggering.
And, furthermore, the fact that there really is no longer a good, neutral American news source is staggering. Long gone are the days of Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley delivering it straight: unbaised reportings of the news of the day (although the Vietnam War coverage could be considered the earliest evidence of sensationalism).
But, again, you are correct. With the failure of the American news media to get it right, and the advent of the Internet, we must grow up and get the news for ourselves…the right way.
Bravo Mintie.
The actual issue: You’re basically saying that the news channels need not, and in fact should not, do anything to ensure fairness in their reporting, no?
Sorry, but I have to agree with Jo on this one.
You never agree with me on anything!
The fact that the average adult can’t, is a bit distressing, however if you begin to impinge on a newscaster and the press’s ability to input their own words, then you begin to actually intercede with the First Amendment.
Well, the First Amendment only applies to government actions against free speech. Government intervention is not necessary to force a change in how things work. Public outcry, boycott, giving the people the choice of a more balanced newspaper… But as she said, the public WANTS what the individual complains about.
As for your unwillingness to vote, you sit on the fence and don’t believe in the system, and perhaps you might be right about this.
Exactly what I said: I don’t vote because I didn’t do the research. I don’t believe in making ignorant decisions like that.
===
Most of the rest of your post seems to be off-track ranting.
“: You’re basically saying that the news channels need not, and in fact should not, do anything to ensure fairness in their reporting, no?”
That is correct.
If you cannot boil facts from opinions you should not be allowed to vote.
Flame on!
If you cannot boil facts from opinions you should not be allowed to vote.
That’s way more idealistic than what kawarazu thinks I want. Instead of barring news reporters from being opinionated in their job based on some untested committee’s standards, you’re proposing that we bar everyone’s voice in government based on some untested committee’s standards.
@Franklin Lee
I’m not saying that they should not. I feel that newspapers and news reporters are not obligated by some higher standard to give an unbiased report. People will always have an opinion, and it is far harder to seperate said opinion from a factual piece of writing than you think. Demanding that a journalist must work above human nature is unfair to the journalist.
Also, you give too little credit to the American public. Many of them KNOW how to seperate opinion from fact. The problem is, many of them refuse to do so. This is more an issue of laziness and unwillingness to actually understand the information presented.
A main part of “Freedom of the Press” (granted in the Constitution) is national right for ANYONE (journalist, bloggers, writer and citizens) to express their opinion in a verbal or written form. I will now quote from the Universal Decleration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
This statement holds true to newspapers as well. Demanding that they withhold opinions is unfair to the journalist, columists, writers and editors that work ridiculously hard to let their voices be heard.
If you want unbiased newsreporting, read more than one newspaper. Make your own calls, and your own judgements on the information given. Take an ACTIVE role in the news around you.
Also, the rain to meteorologist and journalist to public analogy does not show some juxtoposition. In fact, it supports my opinion. If a meteorologist were to misinform the public about the weather, the public will simply no longer listen to the meteorlogist. If a newsreporter were to misinform the public and make up current events as truth, people will simply no longer take the newsreporter seriously. However, the meteorologist has every right to say “this weather sucks,” just as the journalist has every right to say “this war sucks.”
@pjpunkdte
BBC is as close to unbiased newsreporting as there will be for a very long time.
If you want to get a full scope of the news, I suggest reading at least 3 newspapers/newscasts. One on the far left, one on the far right and one that falls closer to the middle. Ideally, I would say 5 (One far right, one closer right, one far left, one closer left, and one that fits as close to your opinions as possible, which may or may not mean you’re doubling up on opinions you fit under). Of coures, this can be difficult for people with busy schedules.
This is why I promote the use of RSS feeds and online newspaper reading. This allows you to recieve news while on-the-go. Perhaps one day, everyone will have kindles and we will no longer need physical copies of newspapers (I sincerely hope that day won’t happen since I like picking up my copy of the NYT).
@Phoenix 1
Or at least have some sort of system to help teach people how to pay more attention in politics so people can vote properly. So many tard voters in the US. The Yellow Dog Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) are still scattered throughout the states. Fail.
I’m not saying that they should not. I feel that newspapers and news reporters are not obligated by some higher standard to give an unbiased report.
Just as we hold firefighters to a higher standard with regard to the attributes that let them do their jobs, we can hold journalists to a higher standard. What’s the difference between asking a journalist to do his research and asking him to keep his reporting as reporting?
People will always have an opinion, and it is far harder to seperate said opinion from a factual piece of writing than you think.
Separating fact from opinion in reading is at least as difficult as separating it in writing, because if you can do it in reading, you can certainly read your own work before publishing. If you claim that most people can spot where the opinions come into play, then by corollary they can as easily filter out their opinions when writing.
Many of them KNOW how to seperate opinion from fact. The problem is, many of them refuse to do so.
Whether or not they have the ability to do so, we’re straying too far from the point. Which is: You’re asking the Public, an entity known to be lazy and stupid, to be more responsible in their reading of newspapers. Blah blah blah shift responsibility blah.
A main part of “Freedom of the Press” (granted in the Constitution) is national right for ANYONE (journalist, bloggers, writer and citizens) to express their opinion in a verbal or written form.
I allow for that in the “Opinions & Editorials” section. I don’t propose that opinions stay out of newspapers, I just propose only that when we apply the label of “news” to an article, we can be sure that it’s news.
Demanding that they withhold opinions is unfair to the journalist, columists, writers and editors that work ridiculously hard to let their voices be heard.
But purportedly, they’re working hard to bring the knowledge of current events to the people, not to have an outlet for their own ideas. I don’t know of a newspaper which has in its credo, “We Bring You the Voice of the Reporters.”
If you want unbiased newsreporting, read more than one newspaper.
I want honesty in reporting. Not honesty in reporting that comes to me. I’m against the fact that this exists, not that it reaches my eyes.
If a newsreporter were to misinform the public and make up current events as truth, people will simply no longer take the newsreporter seriously.
But the reason for doing so is that they blame the news reporter, rather than the people that believed him/her. In other words, it’s the responsibility of the reporter not to lie, and failing that responsibility, he or she is faulted.
However, the meteorologist has every right to say “this weather sucks,” just as the journalist has every right to say “this war sucks.”
More like:
Meteorologist: “It will probably rain tomorrow” (versus “It is my opinion that it will probably rain tomorrow.”)
Journalist: “The president has made hot-headed comments like this before.”