This blog prompt touches back on the “is the media biased?” one. Similar to media bias, ideally journalists and the media should be objective, but realistically it is near-impossible to find a completely objective news network. However, I think clearly nonobjective news sources should give their public a little more respect by at least admitting they are broadcasting to a certain constituency. The fact that Fox News still touts the idea that it is”fair and balanced” is laughable and, frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the viewers ( MSNBC‘s claim to objectivity is also hard to buy, though their slogan is less brazenly critique-able). As I said, it would be ideal for news sources to be objective, but they usually aren’t. Overtly-biased sources such as the aforementioned networks should at least own up to the fact that they are not objective and should market themselves as left-or right-wing networks, because those are their true natures.
I do feel, however, that some news sources make a decent attempt at being objective. The interview we read for today starts out with a preface mentioning how NPR fired Juan Williams on the grounds that he, “had violated the organization’s belief in impartiality“. The fact that Mr. Williams was hired by Fox soon thereafter attests to the fact that he may not have been very objective. While NPR is hardly 100% objective, moves like that signify an interest in being so. I have found that NPR usually does do a very good job being impartial, and politics is rarely the station’s primary focus anyways.
I do agree (to an extent) with Jay Rosen’s idea that, “If in doing the serious work of journalism–digging, reporting, verification, mastering a beat–you develop a view, expressing that view does not diminish your authority. It may even add to it.” The most important part of news journalism is “digging, reporting [and] verification”. And if a person is doing their job correctly, they will report honest news that they may not have objectivity towards. However, I feel that the majority of news networks preach in their own interest, don’t do the needed investigation to do so, and still tout themselves as “objective”.
In the end, I agree with Ben Smith’s pluralistic idea that “… ideological and neutral journalism can flourish side by side, each going places the other is unwelcome, and each correcting for the other’s weaknesses.” The objectivity that NPR strives for is important (and certainly hard to maintain), but the no-holds-barred nonobjective views of other news networks is realistic (if only they would admit what they are doing).
Before start to my argument, I want to ask one question, could media possibly achieve one-hundred percent objectiveness, and fairness? Well, as a journalism student, based on my working experience and conversations with many professional reporters in United States and South Korea, I think that is impossible.
There are several factors in and outside of the media that prevent them from fulfilling pure objectiveness. For instance, news organization bias could affect selecting their agendas, and individual reporter’s bias might be a key role of choosing their stories’ sources, and interviewees. To sum up, this all may contribute to results in biased’ news materials
First, there are ownership issues.
Many news media including, NBC, CNN, and Fox News, are not owned by truth seeking journalists, but by so-called ‘media entrepreneurs” whose interests are solely based on profit
Considering the fact that profit comes from advertisements, media should be very careful to cover corporation related stories, and it is very tempting for them to be pro-corporations. It sounds a little radical, but I am just telling the basic system of current commercial media. That’s just way it is. Noam Chomsky explains this phenomenon on this video.
-News Corporation is not much care about truth of news contents.
When my parents were twenty it was a lot different task to be a democratic citizen. You would have to work harder in my opinion to be a well-informed citizen. Back then after seeing or listening to a debate the announcers would sign off for the night leaving the American people left deciding on what they thought of the debate. Now when a debate is over the TV critics talk for an hour or even longer on who they believe won the debate. To make it worse we have Fox news leaning one way and MSNBC leaning another.
Another thing I want to explain is what it means to be informed. Many people think they can pick up all the information they need by a couple clicks on the all mighty GOOGLE. This I believe is false! What I have learned in my Political Communications class this Fall is that when you are given information about one politician or another, you need to see both sides and know that every message seen has a purpose. Analyzing the data and looking at information that may not always agree with what you stand for is a good way to build your own opinion.
Here is a journal article about the art is being well-informed.
Being well-informed is not the same as being a know-all.”
I hope you enjoyed my blogs and be sure to continue to read what I decide to post because this did start as a class assignment has turned into a passion I wish to continue.
To go off of what my title is I am going to discuss what the good, the bad, and the useful was throughout this semester.
I will start with the news that is good!
I first want to say that if there is anyone out there reading this that isn’t in Political Communications at Mizzou, look into it. The reading assigned are very relevent and compared to other Comm. readings I have had this semester I was able to enjoy them. There is no other class that I have ever heard of where you can:
1. Blog for your daily grade.
2. Tweet for participation points.
3. Use your computer on an essay exam.
Coming in into this class I was interested in the material but to be honest, was taking it because I needed it. The most useful tool I have used this semester was to be able to put reading together into my own thoughts. For example: the section where we read and learned about the Nixon campaign. We didn’t just learn about this part of history, we were able to decide what could have been done differently as well as know in the future how to do things better so something like what happened to Nixon doesn’t happen again.
Now, on to the bad jazz…
I wasn’t big on the lecture itself. I never have a problem with getting out early by any means. I would enjoy things to be a little different from day-to-day. Although, I know I have missed a few classes due to work, voting, and being sick, I have no room to complain on how my professor runs his classroom. I did enjoy the days where we watched old campaign commercials, as well as the video with men who worked on the JFK vs. Nixon campaign teams.
I know these days people enjoy ratings so they can pin-point how classes really are. If you were to ask me, how good was this class on a scale of one to ten compared to other classes at Mizzou, I would answer with a stong EIGHT this is a class in the Comm department that if you miss out on you will regret it.
This week I wanted to answer the question of being involved in politics and how it is just as important as being involved in “real life”. In the society we live in now, when people want a quick question answered there is one universal website people choose… GOOGLE. It is a simple search engine people can run to with any questions they have about politics, who to vote for, as well as blogs such as mine.
There are many ways to use the internet to help you better educated yourself on how to track politics online. Here is a video that shows how easy it is to track politics online.
For democracy the implications are set up in a win/loose situation. It is a win for US the american people, but at the same time it I believe it is a loose for campaign teams. The internet makes it much harder to regulate what people have access to see on each candidate. Back before the internet, people weren’t able to build as much information about each candidate for themselves.
In this video of Mr. Blunt you can see how Roy Blunt hates clean energy, or so it seems.
This ad is trying to get the audience to understand that Roy Blunt is against clean energy. It shows how he voted against spending money to have a more green country. This reminds me of anti-abortion ads, because some ads try to make some politicians look like they are for abortion. We all know people are not for abortion just like we know there aren’t people in this world for destroying our earth.
The intended audience I would say are younger voters who care more about a more green environment.
I believe the ad is very effective because it shows us (the audience that Blunt doesn’t feel clean energy is important).