Thursday, September 4, 2008
Media responsibility
One thing that amazes me the most during political campaigns is the amount of double speak. Double speak simply meaning saying one thing in one situation and then saying the exact opposite in a similar situation. For example, the republicans attacked hilary for implying some sort of sexism in the system (both political and media). They said that if she can't play with the boys, then she should go home. But now, they are the party with the female candidate, a female candidate that has come under fire for a CLEAR lack of qualifications. So what do they do...they cry a sexist foul on the part of the media. They say that these questions stem from the imbedded sexism within the system. The Daily Show does a perfect job illustrating my point. (see video) So, my question is this, why must we rely on the daily show to point out the complete absurdity of the republican line of thought? How hard would it be for the major networks to use the party's own words against them? Let me be clear on this, this is not a partisan argument, this is about pushing people off their "talking points" and forcing them to answer real questions and forcing them to account for their clear lack of logic. I would sincerely like to hear everyone's thought on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Sorry, here's the video link
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086
I don't have time right now for a more thought out response, although I do agree that the media should be 'watchdogish'. Or at the very least not attempt to paint their biased covered as objective (on both sides).
I just thought you might appreciate this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
I know you could do the same for Dems as well, but thought it was interesting in light of class discussion yesterday.
Jon Stewart does a great service exposing the hypocrisy and partisan hackery of many in the media. Part of the problem isn't that major media outlets have become totally slanted but rather that they have employed spin doctors and hacks from both sides to "spice up" the coverage or to create the pretense of debate. While it is easy to find examples of these hacks pretending to be fair, it is hard to find examples of the actual journalists exhibiting this behavior.
For example, Rove is obvi a conservative hack and a hypocrite, but we knew this from the beginning. He isn't a journalist. He's a hack. Carl is correct when he questions the value of this. Truth seeking is a lost art. Someone should act all postmodern about that, it would be deep...
Jon Stewart has been a faithful crusader against this "journalistic" nonsense for a while (see our post below about his appearance on crossfire) but he isn't exactly the neutral arbiter. He, like me, openly supports Obama and has no problem using whatever influence he has to tip the scales. Unfortunately for him, he only has credibility with the already converted. Unfortunately for me, I don't have any influence over anyone : )
You can still watch the News Hour or Meet the Press to get some good journalism. Once again, if that's what people wanted PBS would be on everyone's TV and O'Reilly would still be peddling his crap on Entertainment Tonight.
At least you get 2 sections of Coms 130 to try to turn to the News Hour side of things every semester. If I can get 5 of them a year to critically analyze what they hear and notice the difference between good and bad research I'll be happy. Surely I'll have to find other ways to make myself happy.
Ben hit the nail right on the head (and drove it through the wall) on this one.
When I administered a couple of news websites for CNHI, I always got a kick out of looking at the page-view matrices (where you can see what stories people are actually reading).
Most popular, of course, was the court report. Then the letters to the editor, and then the house editorials. Actual news stories that inform people about changes that affect their lives were always dead last (even after the obits). The AP folks I've talked to tell me it's no different anywhere else.
I hate to disillusion you even further, Carl, but people really aren't that interested in news; they're interested in OPINIONS about news. As Ben pointed out, news outlets (regardless of the medium) will "spice it up" with that kind of material if they know people will view/read it. Factor in the economic/competition issue that really only kicked in (as far as television is concerned anyway)with the advent of cable, and you've got lots of opinion and just a little bit of news.
As a journalist, I feel sorry for the TV news reporters who work their butts off to get what they know is an important story, just to have it cut down to a couple of minutes of airtime, while the commentators get to chew on it for a half-hour or more (maybe even all week!).
When I was 22, I too complained about the lack of "media responsibility" (even wrote songs about it!) so when I graduated with my all-mighty BA degree, I got a job in the newspaper business with the intentions of fixing the problem.
Guess what?
The problem's not with the media. The problem's with the media consumer.
Was it Jim Kitchens or the corn farmer at the cigar lounge later that night (it's all running together) who said, "We get the media we deserve?"
With the proliferation of media outlet choice, I'd take it a step further and say, "We get the media we DEMAND."
That's not always the media that would inform us with the information necessary to make decisions.
That's not to say opinion has taken over news -- the two are on a continuum for each media outlet, and you've gotta choose a continuum you can live with. If you don't like FOX, fine. Watch PBS.
No wonder Burke preferred a comic frame of reference -- anything else will drive you nuts and put you in an early grave.
Now, if you will all get out you "Attitudes Toward History" while the choir is taking a break, and turn to page 171, let us read together: "In sum, the comic frame should enable people to be observers of themselves, while acting. Its ultimate would not be passiveness, but maximum consciousness. One would 'transcend' himself by noting his own foibles. He would providea rationale for locating the irrational and the non-rational."
Amen
Just a quick response to Eddie's comment about people not being interested in the news but being interested in opinions about the news:
Many of you may have already seen that MSNBC is replacing their two main election anchors. The story behind that is interesting: the anchors were hired to be more sensational than traditional journalists and provide the biased commentary they thought people wanted from their news programming...Now they are changing their minds and replacing these two with the traditional anchor because their strategy didn't work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
First, I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this issue. After reading over the posts, a central theme seems to be forming. The theme being simply that people get the media coverage that they want. If people didn't want sensationalist reporting based on opinion and artificial conversation, then they wouldn't watch it. This point is absolutely legitimate. However, I feel that it disregards the complexity and interconnectedness of our current problem (a problem that we all seem to acknowledge). First, this position seems to deny the fluidity of "consumer" desire. Instead, it portrays what we "want" as a set thing impervious to outside influence. Second, this position narrows the discussion to an extent where the importance of cultivating responsible citizens gets ignored. Responsible citizens are not born, they are developed through values conveyed through family and society. For example, how many people saw the importance of maintaining a clean room when they were five years old? How many people would have rather played outside then do their homework? I for one wanted to play, but despite my desires, my father made me clean my room and do my homework. He taught me the importance of these things, and as I have grown, I see the value in these acts and continue to do them today. The same theory applies to citizenship. We must teach and encourage responsible citizenship in our society. It is through this process that people begin to demand more of their politics and of their media. The point being that simply settling with the "people get what they deserve" position not only limits our potential as political actors, but it also contradicts lessons we have learned in other aspects of our life.
In an attempt to further clarify my earlier point, I would like to add this. The saying that "people get the political coverage they want" implies the media's responsibility to push through the spin and provide accurate information is not inherent in their position within a democratic system. Instead, their responsibility is reduced to function with a consumer model, which gives rise to the supply and demand principle behind the "people get the coverage they want" stance. My argument here is that media has an inherent responsibility within a democratic system to provide the necessary information for citizens to act responsibly. And just because the citizens are currently not living up to their end of the bargain doesn't mean that media is relieved of their responsibility. So instead of settling for the "get what they want" stance, we should acknowledge the importance and interdependence of both fronts (greater media responsibility and the development of responsible citizens) and work jointly with both parties to bolster the importance and possibility for responsible citizenship.
Angela's link to the MSNBC story is definitely worth a read if you haven't checked it out. The switch back to straight news doesn't appear to be solely because of low ratings though. According tp the NBC exec, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”
And the story continues:
"But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted 'NBC.'"
I guess I missed the chanting.
Post a Comment