Our Trust Has Waned
“Conservatives are relativists when it comes to the press. In their view, nothing is neutral: there is no disinterested version of the news; everything reflects politics and relationships to power and cultural perspective. If mainstream journalists find it annoying that conservatives think of them as unalterably hostile, they find it just as annoying that liberals think of them as the friend who keeps letting them down.” -The New Yorker
I constantly hear Conservatives complain about bias of the mainstream media. It is disturbing to me, not only as a journalist (and one who understand how information can be incomplete, interviewees uncooperative, and quotes taken out of context or misunderstood) but also because I have seen the influence of opinion from journalists, editors, producers, and news management. There are facts, and then there are the facts you pursue.
I remember sitting in several meetings at one particular news organization that seemed bent on finding soldiers going off to Iraq because they couldn’t find work here. The idea was that the job situation was so bad in this country that these young men had to join the war effort to provide for themselves and their families. They brought up their hypothesis on a daily basis for quite a few weeks, yet mostly found young men and women signing up out of duty and love for their country. They didn’t report that, of course. I think they might still be on the search for the soldiers they believe to be signing up from lack of jobs. It is that sort of mind-set that is disturbing to many Americans.
On the other hand, it is difficult to accurately report on events where interviewees do not give enough, or even accurate information. Take the Bush Administration, for example. They have a hard time trusting the mainstream media. They seem to believe the media is out to get them. Well, they are. Those in power are highly susceptible to corruption; whether they are, or are not corrupt. That is what the press is there to find out. It’s only natural that reporters would be inquisitive. It is their duty to trust their gut, to ask pertinent questions, and report on not only the answer given by those in power, but also by those who have a different view than the ones who are in power. The Bush Administration seems to believe everything not in their favor, that doesn’t report on all the good they do, is biased (because, of course, to them all they do is good).
When an article shows up that seems clearly biased toward one party or people, the answer may be that the reporter has a bias. It may also be that the other party was uncooperative, or gave false information, or not enough information was available at the time the article went to print, or someone else had a different opinion and that is the main focus of the article. That information should be reflected in the article. Sometimes it isn’t.
“Mainstream journalists want to think that the public is aware of—and respects—the boundaries that separate real journalism from entertainment, and opinion, and propaganda, and marketing.” –The New Yorker
What happens when the press does develop a certain kind of spin? When it is too difficult for the masses to seperate opinion from fact? The Press needs to be watched just as much as the Pentagon or the White House. Thankfully, there's the electronic ether, where bloggers and journalists alike can exercise their First Amendment rights.
CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan resigned, thanks to bloggers intent on finding out whether Jordan really accused the U.S. military of murdering journalists in his talk at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The resignation came only days after a reporter for the Republican-backed Conservative newswire Talon.com was forced to leave his position at the White House Press pool after bloggers exposed the fact that he had no press experience and had used a fake name in order to receive White House Press credentials.
"Even though there are two fewer journalists today, with the bloggers on our side, the coalition in favor of free and open speech has never been bigger -- or louder."-DC Examiner
Fellow blogsters, today ours is the power to expose truth and justice. Today we have the power to make a difference and spread the word. For today the power of the word is at our fingertips.
Responses can be sent to: yourhumanproject@yahoo.com
I constantly hear Conservatives complain about bias of the mainstream media. It is disturbing to me, not only as a journalist (and one who understand how information can be incomplete, interviewees uncooperative, and quotes taken out of context or misunderstood) but also because I have seen the influence of opinion from journalists, editors, producers, and news management. There are facts, and then there are the facts you pursue.
I remember sitting in several meetings at one particular news organization that seemed bent on finding soldiers going off to Iraq because they couldn’t find work here. The idea was that the job situation was so bad in this country that these young men had to join the war effort to provide for themselves and their families. They brought up their hypothesis on a daily basis for quite a few weeks, yet mostly found young men and women signing up out of duty and love for their country. They didn’t report that, of course. I think they might still be on the search for the soldiers they believe to be signing up from lack of jobs. It is that sort of mind-set that is disturbing to many Americans.
On the other hand, it is difficult to accurately report on events where interviewees do not give enough, or even accurate information. Take the Bush Administration, for example. They have a hard time trusting the mainstream media. They seem to believe the media is out to get them. Well, they are. Those in power are highly susceptible to corruption; whether they are, or are not corrupt. That is what the press is there to find out. It’s only natural that reporters would be inquisitive. It is their duty to trust their gut, to ask pertinent questions, and report on not only the answer given by those in power, but also by those who have a different view than the ones who are in power. The Bush Administration seems to believe everything not in their favor, that doesn’t report on all the good they do, is biased (because, of course, to them all they do is good).
When an article shows up that seems clearly biased toward one party or people, the answer may be that the reporter has a bias. It may also be that the other party was uncooperative, or gave false information, or not enough information was available at the time the article went to print, or someone else had a different opinion and that is the main focus of the article. That information should be reflected in the article. Sometimes it isn’t.
“Mainstream journalists want to think that the public is aware of—and respects—the boundaries that separate real journalism from entertainment, and opinion, and propaganda, and marketing.” –The New Yorker
What happens when the press does develop a certain kind of spin? When it is too difficult for the masses to seperate opinion from fact? The Press needs to be watched just as much as the Pentagon or the White House. Thankfully, there's the electronic ether, where bloggers and journalists alike can exercise their First Amendment rights.
CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan resigned, thanks to bloggers intent on finding out whether Jordan really accused the U.S. military of murdering journalists in his talk at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The resignation came only days after a reporter for the Republican-backed Conservative newswire Talon.com was forced to leave his position at the White House Press pool after bloggers exposed the fact that he had no press experience and had used a fake name in order to receive White House Press credentials.
"Even though there are two fewer journalists today, with the bloggers on our side, the coalition in favor of free and open speech has never been bigger -- or louder."-DC Examiner
Fellow blogsters, today ours is the power to expose truth and justice. Today we have the power to make a difference and spread the word. For today the power of the word is at our fingertips.
Responses can be sent to: yourhumanproject@yahoo.com
Comments
When it comes I will tell you.
He basically said that all media is funded coporately and they decide what is reported or what is considered news, anything that would show the many instances of injustice about a certian coporate structure would silence or fire a reporter who tried to publish such reports, for example the mass posioning in India that killed thousands and have left 100,000 critically ill for life. This was ingenuisly covered up. Dupal or something. It was a company owned by dupont who was responsible and no real money has ever been given to the "poor people" of that region for the damage from the chemical /fertilizer plant. After all 90 percent of the nations wealth is owned by 10 percent. That is a minority that has the power." Power of many shall fall into the hands of the few"
Personally I follow comunity funded media. Democracy Now is a good one. There are issues I dont agree with but on a whole it isnt coporate driven into a certian direction or have the people believe it is Good or Bad, liberal or Conservitive. Im nither, and never will take a side. America was started with many fractions to keep balance, nowadays its one extreme or the other. They can both rot.
"Its all hanging by a thread"
~Vx