Today I want to concentrate an issue very close to my heart. 'Fair and Balanced News'. Do you think that such an ideal exists. In my personal experience I have found BBC World to be as close as it gets to comprehensive and fair news.
I used to live in Dubai where the news was surprisingly fair. Being a monarchy or Sheikhdom, the Sheikh is rarely criticized and as of late, crimes committed by citizens were not being told to to the largely expatriate population. Apart from that, the news we got was....well...fair and balanced. We had the local news channel, GulfNews (an excellent newspaper) and cable news. The largely Conservative news channel Fox News was allowed to broadcast (some may say it has an anti-arab bias) along with the regional channel Al Jazeera (which some say has a pro-Arab agenda).
I used to have a hardcore approach to News: News must portray all sides of the story and there must be governmental regulation in place to counter free-market-tabloid-esque news broadcasts.
As of late I am inclined to fell this is a lost cause.
Free-Market-News
Internet: The 'vocal' users of the internet are largely slanted to the left where websites like digg.com represent either liberal or libertarian points of view (the Ron Paul and Mike Gravel phenomenon). Views are either hidden or shown based on user approval in the form of 'diggs'. I just used digg as an example. I visit the website everyday because it is still a great source
Television news: For years cable news has had an aspect of Fear and Hollywood has been emphasized. In the previous weeks we saw hundreds of hours of news coverage dedicate to Paris Hilton or Chris Benoit (pro wrestler who murdered his wife, son, and committed suicide). Interest pieces like these have become the cornerstone of cable news. Suposedly this is driven by market forces. I feel this is some twisted attempt to get people hooked on 'Reality News', a mechanism which drove the 'what would happen next' feelings of 'Reality TV'. There is something sinister about reporters cashing in on these interest pieces which has cheapened the value of media in a democratic society. Its all about killers and starlets. That's why a famous rock band named itself Marilyn-Manson. I watch these channels everyday because they are still good sources to understand culture and hear discourse - just not good hard news.
In the days to come I will outline my solutions on how to tackle this problem and I need people's help and feedback to make this possible. If your a free-market kind of guy/gal - trust me there is a huge market for free and informative news.
In the words of a guy I talked to in a bar, who was interested in my culture: "All the high schools and the news taught me was propaganda and bullshit....the reason I wanted to talk to you about where you're from is because I have been taught nothing"
There have been 0 posts on this site and 22 visits in the last couple of days.....Come on people...live a little! Post your views!
4 comments:
Howdy
You make some interesting comments.
I'm on the internet so I must be... Ron Paul guy.
No seriously I'm a Ron Paul fan. :)
I talk to people in the ~offlime world~ normally who are sick of the 'Reality News.'
I was honestly shocked because they thanked me. 'Finally,' they said 'someone to vote for that doesn't have that taste in your mouth.'
Thanks for the comment Travis. You are officially my first blog commentator. Congratulations! :)
Ron Paul does have some interesting views. Although I do not totally agree with him on limited government regulation...he stands out in a very important way.
He stands for a strict following of the constitution and the internet community has gone nuts over him and rightly so. He is in direct opposition to other neo-con republicans who have misinterpreted the ideals of the fiscally responsible Republican Party.
'Reality News': hundreds if not thousands of college students want to see an end to media abuse and I hope we can mobilize through the internet
Speaking of world news, I want to read your thoughts on the smoking bans cities/countries are placing all over the world. Lets talk about that. I'm, assuming you will agree with me that they are completly necessary to protect innocent bystander health, but I'd like to hear what you have to say.
I tend to agree with you manifesto, that is I agree that it is not possible or even reasonable for news to try to report every side and every angle of an issue. I think it is important to remember that while labeled news, at some level most news is really entertainment. Network news is largely targeted to it's audience. Giving viewers news that is "compatible" to their beliefs is in the best interest of the networks. It is after all a business.
Viewers of internet news sources like digg.com are a very different audience than that of network news, so their angle on stories is quite different. Sites like digg which are supported by user submissions will conform to the views of the audience even more than television news. One major issue with digg though is accountability. I also frequent the site and have in a few instances seen stories which were inaccurate, though to the credit of the digg user base, inaccurate stories are generally dugg down.
I am eager to hear your solutions on how to tackle the issue of getting accurate reliable news in a modern western society.
Post a Comment