Hello, fellow bloggers! I hope I'm not beating a dead horse by bringing the this topic up again, but here I go...
In the national government class I'm taking this semester Ms. Dickason has begun talking about media, its influence, its bias, etc. The whole time she was talking today I was constantly reminded of English class and some of our in-class and blog discussions about the media and bias, in general.
One of my teacher's points was that bias is just one interpretation of the same set of facts, and that many times bias involves taking a look at only one half of the facts. The facts may be correct, but they are incomplete. In addition, I was reminded of the necessity of ethos and reliability of sources when she mentioned that facts are only regarded as "true" when there is an identifiable source (for example, if a source asks not to be named, the information will be regarded as illegitimate, whether or not it is).
My teacher also took a moment to define the term "media," which was a very good move-- whether or not we realized it, we probably were all thinking of different things when we heard the word "media." She said that there are three types of media: printed, broadcast, and internet. She distinguished journalism in print sources of media from opinion editorials. She said that a newspaper makes a point of doing that (that's why there are two different sections-- one for "information" and the other for explicit opinion).
Another point that Ms. Dickason made was that what makes a source legitimate is the fact that the public regards it as so and holds it accountable. This reminded me of the feedback loop that we discussed regarding "Merchants of Cool"-- the media publishes/broadcasts what it knows will attract viewers-- viewers are attracted, and watch-- the media see what attracts viewers and broadcasts it again...etc. Sometimes this is factual, but, as she pointed out, who wants to watch a debate when s/he can hear commentary on the debate? Viewers/readers/listeners are easily bored by straight news, and the media is interested in selling, so it will do what it has to do to make a interesting story. (She mentioned that there is a difference between the media being inaccurate and the person that the media quotes being inaccurate.)
It is impossible to avoid slant and bias, no matter how hard a person tries. The purpose of a media source is not to be the ultimate source of knowledge, but one of many perspectives on information/data/"fact."
I know this is a lot of what we have heard before and discussed already, but I thought it was kind of cool how a lot of the thoughts that have been formulating in English have a place in the history classroom, as well.
Emily T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm glad you brought this up. I enjoyed the discussion of media bias in Hon. Natl. Govt. as well.
To add another point to your post, Mrs. Dickason asked us how much influence we thought the media had on the outcome of the Presidential election. At first, I was about to say "Not much" (because in my experience, most people have a healthy suspicion of the media). But then I realized something that was completely obvious in retrospect: the media is our only source of information about the Presidential election, and indeed, most events. Of course the media is going to influence the election! How could it not? The media could choose to report pretty much anything, and as long as all the mainstream sources of news reported the lies as fact, the public could be tricked into believing all sorts of crazy things. It freaked me out a little. The media really has so much more control over information than I've initially
It made me wonder: how much control does the media have over events, such as elections? If the entire population of America only had access to dry, almost totally unbiased news, would election outcomes be different? Or would Obama have won anyway because the economy is bad and Bush's approval ratings are so low?
-Paige Walker-
Paige's question is quite intriguing. Would the results of the presidential election have been different if we had access to virtually unbiased news? (Of course such a situation is completely hypothetical - I agree with Emily that it seems impossible to avoid bias/slant completely.)
I personally believe that the results of the election could indeed have been different, due to the great influence that media has on our decision-making processes. I think that Senator McCain was at quite a disadvantage in this election because many sources of media (e.g. CNN and Time Magazine) seemed to favor Senator Obama (emphasized qualifier). Of course, since there were liberal media sources there were also a few conservative media sources. However, I personally felt that the overwhelming majority of media sources were biased in favor of Obama.
I think that if we had access to different "unbiased" sources (again, hypothetically), then McCain might not have faced such a lack of approval. When I think about the election, I am reminded of what I learned about in US history last year concerning the election of President Kennedy. Kennedy's victory had been greatly influenced by his youthful, suave appearance on television. I think that such an influence may have existed in the recent election as well.
This discussion directly relates to the book I read independently for the Semantics Unit: Amusing Ourselves to Death (by Neil Postman). As you can probably imagine by reading the title, the central argument of this book is that we Americans truly love "amusing ourselves" through different kinds of media, or in other words, that we are essentially addicted to entertainment.
This leads me to pose a question: if so much media serves to entertain us, then does this entail that we are seeking entertainment when we wish to obtain information about a presidential candidate's plans/ideals? When people turn on the TV or read an article that will help them make a decision on which candidate they will support with their ballot, is their ultimate purpose or motive to amuse themselves?
(Janet Lee)
Hello it's Jenn
My dad is an editor of a newspaper in Korea. Therefore, I discussed many things that have been brought up in our class with him when we were talking about media bias.
I remember asking my dad about the validity of newspaper articles that use data and facts without citing their sources. I can't remember what he exactly said but I'm pretty positive that he mentioned something about ethos(of the journalists), reputation of the newspaper, and the morality of the newspaper companies.
I don't necessarily think that turning your TV on to watch the news or grabbing a newspaper can actually amuse you, especially if you are looking for political information. I do not believe anyone is looking for entertainment the instant he/she decides to listen to the media for presidential election. However, after acquiring the information,people start bashing or sometimes even worshipping the candidate enjoy doing so, although they may not realize that they are amusing themselves.
There is going to be no stop to people's criticism on media bias. After all, it's the viewer's choice. You have to decide whether you are going to trust the information from media.
(Jennifer Park)
I do also feel that a lack of media involvement would have affected the 2008 Presidential Election. Yet even if media specialists put forth their best efforts in order to produce "dry" (as little bias as possible) news, our own bias is inherent and inevitable.
Even if a certain television channel makes Candidate A seem like a really swell guy, but I have my heart set on Candidate B, wouldn't it be very tough to overcome my own bias against Candidate A? This is just a thought, but maybe it only applies to the dogmatic. In Douglas Rushkoff's Coercion, however, just a simple switching around of words greatly affected a poll concerning politics. This makes me reconsider my primary argument.
To answer Janet's question:
I do honestly feel that as human beings, we crave stories that have been padded with unnecessary fluff. Why do we know the latest celebrity gossip? Because it's dramatic, of course! We marvel at how something that seems so fictional is ultimately a "reality". I think this is safe to say, right?
(Sam Maliha)
"If so much media serves to entertain us, then does this entail that we are seeking entertainment when we wish to obtain information about a presidential candidate's plans/ideals?"- Janet
I have one word in response to this: Palin. The media was all over Palin-- why? She's new, she's different, she's a woman (let's face it, girls are a lot more interesting than guys when it comes to drama). So, when people turned on the TV at night to check up on the campaign, I would assume that there were people turning it on just to check out the latest "news" on Palin. The media realized quickly that stories involving the latest on Palin would sell, so that's what they put in the paper, on TV, on the internet, etc. The feedback loop? Does the negative aura surrounding Palin reflect the media's bias or the public's bias, which is displayed in the media?
Another question concerning the feedback loop in regards to political media sources, completely unrelated to the above comments. Ms. Dickason mentioned in class (and I have read repeatedly in the last few weeks in Newsweek) that the US is a center-right nation. If this is the case, why is the media center-left? Does this mean that the feedback loop is falty, and the media is actually not a reflection of the sentiments of the public? Or, has the public turned slightly to the left in discontent with the current administration and that is reflected in the media? (In the latter case, would this mean that the public and the media will turn center-right once a new administration is in place?)
Just some food for thought...
Emily T.
Since the United States is a center-right nation (a generalization, nevertheless), I feel that the media strives to introduce us to other ends of the spectrum. Countering one seemingly extreme case with another sparks interest. At least to me, it does. And to answer Emily's last question: Yes, I do believe the media will flip-flop once again after the "new" administration has been established. The public doesn't need to hear and observe what they already know. They want sometimes new, something juicy, something that deviates from the norm. As long as there is conflict (that does not affect them personally), the members of the audience become excited. They crave these sorts of things, don't you think?
We come from such a competent society. Thus, watching Sarah Palin (a vice-presidential candidate!) making foolish mistakes on the screen put us into a state of awe and disbelief. It was interesting to us. Like Janet said, watching her became more entertainment than anything else. Both parties, the media and the audience, are guilty.
I don't think that the feedback loop applies here, however. After watching poor Sarah Palin, the last thing we wanted to do was imitate her mistakes. Sure the media aired and printed her latest blunders, yet we did not aspire to be like her; at least, I didn't. I might be wrong.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment