I just had a very interesting conversation with my good friend Ruben, who is a student at the University of Chicago studying political science. I told him that my roomate and I were watching the nightly news, just as we always do. I told him that we are interested in knowing what is going on in the world. He gets pretty passionate about things and he gave me a big lecture.
He told me that he does not like to watch the news because he feels that they only give you the news that is important to them. They can distract the public from big events going on in the world; things that the public should be knowing about besides the cute little stories the news shows. But I was wondering, then where else could we get our news unless we become reporters ourselves? Is there any reliable source?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Obviously this is a very touchy subject with many people, including journalists. I don't have an answer to your question, but I understand and empathize with this frustration.
Growing up I always assumed the news was golden, anything they said was written in stone, and was the most important news at that particular time, in the area I was living in. Now that I am pursuing this as a career, it is much trickier and political than it appears.
I would have to say that one of the things that bothers me most about "reliable news" is that I feel as though the public is at the mercy of whatever broadcast they are watching. It is their JOB to be non-bias, objective,accurate reporters, but at the end of the day, not EVERYTHING is reported on the news...they get to decide what they report on, and what they feel is necessary for us (the public) to see. This is why some people love being journalists, because of this freedom and also they get to have a say in what they think is important.
I don't know where I stand, I am on both sides of the fense, but my bottom line is, I don't want your opinion (the reprter) or critique of the news, I just want you to report the truth to me.
If anything seems dubious in present media, it is mostly the presentation of news in terms of stories that are given priority.
For instance, a reader has to delve six or ten pages into the Chicago Tribune to find information regarding the American/ Pakistan situation (America has unilaterally crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan to attack "militants with suspected ties to Al Qaeda," possibly on more than one occasion in the last three weeks).
The Tuesday front page of the Chicago Tribune devoted a substantial portion of its cover to a compelling story of a father and son who died in Chesterton, Ind. saving a young neighborhood boy from drowning.
Now both of these stories are important, but for very different reasons.
I would argue that if impact and future implications for the direction of the United States and its citizens are criteria critical to news, then the front page story should have been Pakistani/American relations.
However, the story of Mark Thanos, a 48-year-old teacher, as well as his 75-year-old father, drowning to prevent a stranger's death got the cover.
For a newspaper in debt trying to sell issues, that was probably the right choice financially, not to mention the sentimental didactic undertones it carried and ultimately resonated with readers, all of which John Kass highlighted, maybe superfluously, in his column a few days ago.
Because of the complex state of news and the pressures it faces, many invisible to Joe Public, a discerning consumer is necessary today.
But beyond critical thinking, diversity in the sources of information are necessary too. Read The Guardian or a copy of Reason every now and then, or watch Al Jazeera online.
This is all advice that is average and largely cliche. And yet it is easy to go on CNN x amount of times a day, based solely on consuming habits that may or may not have been examined since their start.
With every form of media being saturated by myriad competitors, all of whom have an agenda, the most reliable approach is to read as many as is practical and examine what they are and are not saying.
The burden of proof, because of the influx of information in the modern world, is shifting towards the consumer.
I have so many things to add to that discussion. But, I will leave it to say that "news consumers," are apparently going to have to be a sort of activists, pushing to hear what they feel is important and do what has already started to be done by the blogger-sphere in breaking stories or at least getting mainstream media to cover them.
When I was the editor-in-chief of an Austin newspaper, I was passionate about the genocide in Darfur and the fact that there was or has been little or no discussion or attention in the American media.
I did my best to cover rally's at Universities, call to get attribution from officials to be able to run stories in the newspaper, and assign pieces to reporters to find out why people aren't as enraged as they were over a UT Longhorn loss - though I had nothing against sports or the Longhorns.
However, ratings and circulation play too big a role in the news business. So, you are right. Becoming a reporter can give you a place for your voice. But, it shouldn't be the only way 'real' news with an adversarial press can reach everyone.
In the meantime, I think we can all just watch Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show."
Post a Comment