Unit 3, Issue 10 debates whether the media can regain public trust. "The Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that only 29 percent of people surveyed believed that the news generally gets the facts straight, and only 18 percent believe that the press deals fairly with all sides of an issue. Yet, despite their disillusionment with the press, 71 percent of people see the press as a necessary watchdog on the government" (p.150, Alexander, Hanson). Although a majority of people do not rely on the media as being a credible and unbiased source, most people do continue to follow the media to stay current on political policies that our country is endorsing. However, as the decade has moved forward, the media has been completely revolutionized with increasing cable chanels, and the introduction of the internet, which has been a breeding ground for blogs and an increased voice on how the media is failing in its prestige and credibility of journalism. In this issue, authors Michael Schudson and John Hockenberry discuss whether or not the media can in fact achieve the goal of regaining the public's trust. Schudson argues that the news is essential for a democracy, and that the journalists "in your face" attitude is unpopular with the people of America, but he argues that this attitude is critical to deliver the best news possible. Hockenberry argues that the news will never regain the public trust due to corporate ownership and obsession with high ratings and high viewership. Alexander and Hanson, the authors of this entire textbook, encourage readers to ponder about one's own perception of the credibility of the press and current journalism. As I pondered, I myself have mainly witnessed the media catering certain stories to the public due to the corporations stance on the issue, and the corporations ties it has with certain people and companies. For example, the GN corporations (Dateline NBC) ties with the Bin Laden family. As a result, the corporation was hesitant to air information on Al Quaeda directly after September 11th, according to Hockenberry. Instead, Dateline NBC continued the coverage on firefighters in the United States because they thought the response of the audience would be positive due to the familiarity of the situation as opposed to a startling new story on the terrorists that were responsible for September 11th. The coveted emotional center of the story was reliable, predictable,and its story lines could be duplicated over and over. The firefighter story line also explains why TV news seems so archaic compared to the advertising and entertainment content on the same network; it is because TV news is not supposed to cover taboo topics! Networks are built to adress audience size first, and content second, which has made America isolated and less educated about the world than it was 50 years ago. In agreement with Hockenberry, I believe the media panders to audiences and searches for "feel" good stories that will keep audiences listening and promote that six sigma attitude in the NBC newsroom(p.151, p.168). On the other hand, journalists and news corporations confrontational attitudes do get the most out stories, but the choice of stories is extremely subjective, and that is where people begin to mistrust the media due to the selectivity of stories, and only covering stories that gain high ratings or high viewership. For example, when the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were finally covered, the NBC's GE parent company stood to benefit from the news coverage as a major defense contractor. But I must say on different issues on political policies.... Would people really want to hear about the complexities of a political policy or a certain bill that may or may not be passed? With covering a high breadth of issues, comes the responsibility of viewers to take interest in them, and on the other hand, it should be the media's responsibility to cover stories without the bias of the corporation-owned news company and its obsession with positive audience response.
In Schudson's defense, most Americans do mistake offical source's opinions for those of journalists or news corporations such as Dateline NBC reporting the story, and journalists and new's companies are criticized as a result, but it is the journalists and new's companies responsibility to get information not only from "top down" sources, but from "bottom up" sources as well! And it is also the journalists responsibility to not only use their conventional wisdom that is intertwined with mainstream politics, but to also cover minority politcal policies. For example, during the 2004 elections, Bush and Gore were primarily covered as opposed to Ralph Nader who was running as well, who had important issues to discuss! Schudson claims that it was not the job of the press to offer the public a wide range of issues, rather the press should analyze and discuss the issues that the two viable and most popular canidates were presenting. Personally, I disagree with Schudson's claim here, and I think that he is giving journalists too much praise... Schudson also mentions that journalists are always there when random events happen, as opposed to social scientists that are not ready to report the issue. However, isn't it the journalists job to report breaking news stories? Overall, Schudson does a terrible job of showing how media can regain public trust, and just makes excuses for why journalists are the way they are, and advocating that society needs them, even if they relish in conflict, and have constraints of conventional American Society. A news system should have certain obligations to society, regardless of the position the journalists are in, and the journalists should report well-balanced stories that do not leave out certain issues or people on the political spectrum. Even though journalists are reporting to a conventional society will certain sociological norms, it is the journalists job to be accountable and responsible to society, as well as their employers.
No comments:
Post a Comment