This is the response you will receive from me if you ask “Did you hear the news?”
The Daily Post’s prompt today is: Link to an item in the news you’ve been thinking about lately, and write the op-ed you’d like to see published on the topic.
Well as I do not watch, read or notice the news, I haven’t been thinking about any topic in the news. Do not mistake this for not thinking about the events that are happening in these times. Sandy’s havoc on the people and the devastation she’s caused is always on my mind. I live in Florida so we are usually well prepared for hurricanes as the people up there can be more prepared for snow storms (which would scare the pants off of me and I do believe you need pants in a snow storm). Everyone affected by this Sandy is in my heart.
I do occasionally click on news articles that were brought to my attention by a Facebook status, a family member, or a friend. A lot of the times I will just have them tell me about it. It may seem as if I am obtuse or flippant about the news and maybe I am, but first you must understand my reasonings and if you don’t you can choose to comment or email your thoughts. Or go on your merry way. No harm no foul. My email is in my ‘about what’ page (which may be more opinion than fact).
Journalism is not today what it was made to be. I can’t, in fact, say it ever was what it was meant for. There were two men in the 1920s that had very different outlooks on what modern Journalism was. *Yes I Wikipedia, but only put forth information with valid citations.
Writer Walter Lippman believed (as I believe) that the Journalist‘s role was to simply be a translator/mediator between the elites [facts/story/government nowadays] and the public. The elites would speak and the Journalist would be the middleman to bring it to the public for the public to understand.
American Philosopher John Dewey believed the public was incapable of understanding the issues created by or responded by the elite that it should be discussed and debated. That journalists should not just pass information, but weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted. His form of Journalism developed to be “Community Journalism“.
Now these two types of Journalism can both be beneficial if properly used, but they aren’t. They have been colored and graffiti-ed and there is now no such thing as being completely unbiased. In America, and I am sure many other countries, the news media is a money profiting business.
A news article and an opinion article are blending to where you cannot tell if you are reading one or the other. If you watch the news, local or national, the “talking heads” are using cues given to them by the station on how they should deliver a story; subtle nod here, barely noticeable grimace there, head tilt here, inflections and tones of their voice.
False information can be added, information considered unimportant or damaging to the stance of the news station/paper is taken out. Information is told in such a way they are telling you how to interpret it without giving you the chance to interpret it yourself. This can also be said about independent papers and news websites. People delivering the news to the world may not even realize that they are telling the story how they want it to be understood.
You’re smart to utilize several sources to get the information, but with such bias going on in local, national, world news how are you to know you’re really getting the facts. It happened this way here, but happened that way there. A or B? Which do you believe?
Just my honest opinion.
Related articles
- Fair and balanced the audience view of media coverage of the crisis (slideshare.net)
- Will Public Relations Become Branded Journalism? (brooksandassociatespr.wordpress.com)
News journalism isn’t about relating news anymore. It is about telling the viewer/reader how to feel, think, and react. The news companys cause more trouble than the actual news does, in my opinion. Good article; good point.
I believe you are right. Thank you for reading and commenting.
I’ll agree to a point that modern news is more about manipulating/conditioning than shining a light in the dark corners. But I think a lot of what’s wrong with mainstream journalism (on the local level, at least) is that one journalist often does the jobs of many (e pluribus unum and what what). It’s easier to mime press releases and quotes without putting any real meaning behind what’s going on.
At the national level, the coziness of news networks and politics is inane to the point of relevancy. There’s a reason why many call them The Villagers.
However, that isn’t to say that there aren’t good sources for news. Unfortunately, it seems to come from the BBC, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, et al, in other words, not of our country.
Unless you’re curious as to why a celebrity wore pink panties with a black dress.
I was going to reply, but my sleeping med has kicked in, I’ll reply tomorrow. Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. I appreciate you sharing your views. I love discussions. Talk soon.
S’all good. And that should’ve read “to the point of irrelevancy” but I can’t blame that on my brand of Soma. I’m a horrible proofreader.
Haha, I did read it as irrelevancy so I still got it how you meant it.
I understand if people have preferences on where they will get their news. I do hear a lot of Americans, my sister included, that speak highly of BBC. But BBC is not without fault and still it’s stories are filtered and they will choose to report on what they think is important rather than the actual news itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
They’re no more perfect than Fox or CNN. I will admit I’ve not heard of your other sources, but may look into them, just don’t want to remark blindly.
I find it unfair that people of this country tend to remark that the news we receive from American news corporations is not as trustworthy as the news received from Canada or Great Britain and the like. They have their fair share of propaganda just as we do. They just report it differently than the corporations do here and that makes them seem to have more validity. Every news corporation in the world is known to have some propaganda. If we as a country keep letting it be known we don’t trust our own news, or government, etc. other countries will play off that and will use propaganda to their advantage to gain American viewers as it is all about money, not about journalism.
In conclusion, it boils down to preference. CNN told me this story, but in BBC brought this information in about this story that wasn’t included in the CNN report. Consider when the information was released, did CNN report faster and that information not available at the time? Goes back to A or B, which will you choose?
you are exactly right! i loved this post.
Congrats on being Freshly Pressed, Babe! xo
Thanks!!
My anxiety has increased suddenly. Haha xo
Meh… no pressure
BBC is not without fault and still it’s stories are filtered and they will choose to report on what they think is important rather than the actual news itself”
Reality is to “news” as tree is to table; i.e. whatever we read or hear or see as “news” is a highly mediated, carefully-curated/created construct, often a byproduct, reality by consensus. I know this because I work as a journalist, writing for the New York Times regularly, and have done this job since 1978.
With all due respect, you want “real” news? Head into the streets yourself and see what’s going on. The simple truth is that every single piece of “news” has been chosen (and many others NOT chosen) by a small group of men and women who have all competed insanely hard to get those jobs and each of whom — and their many managers, producers and editors as well — bring a handful of powerful filters to their very perception of what even IS news: race, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, education, political bias, etc. Within every single newsroom and story meeting, there will be people competing to get their version of each story before the public…and even then it may not resemble what YOU perceive as the story.
The way you and I each perceive “news” is de facto affected by these filters, behaviors and corporate realities, BBC, NPR or Fox. To dismiss all mainstream media misses the larger point.
This piece was an opinion and not to offend. I write what I felt and still feel. I may not be a journalist who has been in journalism since 1978 writing freelance pieces and journaling for a major news corporation, I may not be a Chief Editor or a simple mail room employee at a news firm, I took a Journalism class in High School and a Creative Writing course, that’s the extent. I’m saying there are faults with everything reported whether it’s intended or not and I don’t believe because it’s a foreign news station that it makes them any better than what we have in the US. I didn’t ask for real news, I said I don’t actively participate in reading or watching the news. This doesn’t make me less educated.
There is only one news agency that is actually reporting the NEWS without bias or misinformation these days and that is Al Jazeera. Great piece and congrats on being Freshly Pressed.
Thank you so much. I will have to definitely check them out.
Ever notice how people who listen/read/watch the news on a daily basis are afraid to even leave their houses for fear of being mugged, shot, raped, kidnapped, etc.? And those who forgo the news altogether tend to be far more outgoing, partaking in world travel and activities to benefit the well-being of mankind and (I should mention) seldom run into the aforementioned tragedies?
The media is only a vehicle for fear. Any actual noteworthy piece information will make its way to you through some other medium.
Of course, there do exist journalists who have a true desire to inform the public and keep them abreast of current affairs in an unbiased fashion. Those journalists, however, do not get much, if any, exposure, making it obvious that the true goal of the mainstream media is NOT whatever they proclaim it to be.
In short, great post. You’ve got me thinking now.
In short, great comment, I’m thinking more now, too.
This is a painfully true piece! I’m in broadcast journalism and I do agree, often times news is delivered with personal spin on it. What I find critical in my own blogging here at WordPress is to play devil’s advocate, to spark robust debate and be the “messenger” so to speak. Thanks for posting!
Thanks for commenting, I am going to check your Bog out! I like the fact my piece is bringing about people who work in the industry. It’s much better to know Journalists as individuals and get their take on it.
Reblogged this on tanishaking's Blog and commented:
We have to take certain media outlets into consideration before we can believe everything we hear.
Many media channels differ from each other from television, newspapers, magazines, websites, social networks and so on. Some media conduits are used soley for entertainment and should not be taken seriously; where as other are used to inform the targeted audiences on occurring events. We always have the right to discard what we hear or read and what is considered “news worthy” information.
Media does a great job at calling out the masses’ emotions. It’s all about selling the story, and you are right – it is business. Thanks for bringing this to light. Lippman and his colleague Edward Bernays did a great job at using mass media and expert opinion to help their clients (Tobacco companies, bacon firms, etc) make money.
Good to know you approve.
I teach intro to writing for the media to college freshman and sophomores, may I share this entry with them?? It speaks on point with what we have been discussing in class and I think they would value another writer’s input apart from just my input.
I give you permission. I think you know how to credit, so I won’t go into that spiel.
Thanks!
Great post:)
Thank you so much!
It is hard to get the facts, at least that is what I think! You just have to do with the information you have and try your best! Thanks for your honest blog!
Thank you for your honest comment!
Thanks for your blogging! http://www.segmation.wordpress.com
I get what you’re saying, about how journalism is now tainted with the thoughts and feels of the author-didn’t your third grade teacher tell you to never use I in a neutral essay?- but I also have the opposite problem. Some newspapers-are you listening NYT?- are so polished and unfeeling, they can’t discuss anything anymore.
I can’t decide which type I hate more. There must be a balance somewhere.
Great post, truly deserved its freshly pressed.
Thank you.
Reblogged this on Locodeno's Blog.
Reblogged this on ryanmacadangdang and commented:
NEWS? WHAT NEWS?
News: What other people think about some events and deliver to me in their way.
I like you blog! Hey how do I add my picture to my profile????
Reblogged this on THE SKEW IN THE NEWS and commented:
Great post Combat Babe! When you write “If you watch the news, local or national, the “talking heads” are using cues given to them by the station on how they should deliver a story; subtle nod here, barely noticeable grimace there, head tilt here, inflections and tones of their voice.” it tells that the anchors are not giving the information correctly because they are being told what to say. You can see this with Fox News and MSNBC. Both Fox News and MSNBC are reaching to certain audiences and are skewing the story so that the audience will listen more and not to change the channel. Take a look at my skew in the news blog and see the difference between MSNBC and Fox News. Once again great post!
Fantastic post! It’s lovely to read someone who’s of the same opinion/observations as my own. I ‘evicted’ the media from my home and lifestyle (newspapers, television, radio, magazines) three years ago, with a firm belief – which hasn’t let me down – that if something important arises and I need to know about it, it will find me in good time. Even then, one sometimes has to wade through hype and sensationalism to discern the facts. Life without the media can be so liberating. Well, to me, at least