Why The Free Lunch For The Media?
As a matter of clarification to a previous post, Getting To Know You, we want to expand a bit on our idea, that those with influence on public opinion ought to be subject to the same scrutiny as those they report on.
The fact of the matter is, media can and does influence opinion and ideas. That is clearly the case.
If media did not influence opinion and ideas, advertisers would not find media outlets to be of any value. Advertisers utilize media in the hope that their advertising will change behavior. That is, if you are loyal to product A, the hope is that enough people will be influenced by media to buy product B.
Obviously, advertisers find media a good way to get you to change your beliefs and perceptions.
The same applies to news. CNN is successful because it appeals to a certain kind of viewer. CNN is not pleased that Fox News appeals to a different kind of viewer- and is even less pleased that Fox News scores so well in the ratings, by attracting even more viewers.
CNN complains about Fox News and Fox News complains about CNN. Why? Influence, that is why. If CNN or Fox News were simply news outlets, there would be no discernible difference between them- and yet, clearly, there is.
Bill O'Reilly presents his view, clearly conservative. Anderson Cooper presents his view, clearly liberal- and each of them attempts to influence the meaning of the news. O'Reilly heaps scorn on the NO and LA disaster officials and Cooper pretends they don't even exist. Same news, different spin.
We are not advocating journalists not do their job. In fact, we are all for a vibrant and vigorous press. However, we have a right to know exactly who is doing the reporting and what their credibility issues are, if any.
Mango, said in a comment that
The McMartin pre school case in California, and more recently, the Richard Jewel case in Georgia, are good examples of how media influenced local communities- and ruined lives, in the process- and those were cases we know about.
Clearly, writers and editors can influence opinion. As with advertisers, they would not utilize the media influence if it did not deliver.
It is true that we can easily discern a writers politics, simply by reading that writer. There are however, bigger issues than that. The NYT, for example, is selective in correcting errors. Some writers seem to be more 'error prone.' Editors choose cropped photos so as to convey a certain idea- when a publishing the entire photo would convey an entirely different impression.
It is common editorial policy to mistranslate certain foreign language words and phrases. Why is that? Who makes that decision?
Media influences our understanding of local and national events, every day.
We have the right to know who exactly is influencing our perceptions- just as we have the right to know who it is we select to represent us.
The fact of the matter is, media can and does influence opinion and ideas. That is clearly the case.
If media did not influence opinion and ideas, advertisers would not find media outlets to be of any value. Advertisers utilize media in the hope that their advertising will change behavior. That is, if you are loyal to product A, the hope is that enough people will be influenced by media to buy product B.
Obviously, advertisers find media a good way to get you to change your beliefs and perceptions.
The same applies to news. CNN is successful because it appeals to a certain kind of viewer. CNN is not pleased that Fox News appeals to a different kind of viewer- and is even less pleased that Fox News scores so well in the ratings, by attracting even more viewers.
CNN complains about Fox News and Fox News complains about CNN. Why? Influence, that is why. If CNN or Fox News were simply news outlets, there would be no discernible difference between them- and yet, clearly, there is.
Bill O'Reilly presents his view, clearly conservative. Anderson Cooper presents his view, clearly liberal- and each of them attempts to influence the meaning of the news. O'Reilly heaps scorn on the NO and LA disaster officials and Cooper pretends they don't even exist. Same news, different spin.
We are not advocating journalists not do their job. In fact, we are all for a vibrant and vigorous press. However, we have a right to know exactly who is doing the reporting and what their credibility issues are, if any.
Mango, said in a comment that
First, an op-ed writer does not have a lifetime appointment.We heartily disagree. That an op-ed writer or reporter doesn't have a lifetime appointment is irrelevant. Most elected officials don't have lifetime appointments, either. Those officials are are reported on, regularly.
Secondly, although a writer/editor/etc may THINK they have the power to influence public policy, they do not.
By reading an editorial, most intelligent people will be able to figure out the editors politics.
The McMartin pre school case in California, and more recently, the Richard Jewel case in Georgia, are good examples of how media influenced local communities- and ruined lives, in the process- and those were cases we know about.
Clearly, writers and editors can influence opinion. As with advertisers, they would not utilize the media influence if it did not deliver.
It is true that we can easily discern a writers politics, simply by reading that writer. There are however, bigger issues than that. The NYT, for example, is selective in correcting errors. Some writers seem to be more 'error prone.' Editors choose cropped photos so as to convey a certain idea- when a publishing the entire photo would convey an entirely different impression.
It is common editorial policy to mistranslate certain foreign language words and phrases. Why is that? Who makes that decision?
Media influences our understanding of local and national events, every day.
We have the right to know who exactly is influencing our perceptions- just as we have the right to know who it is we select to represent us.
<< Home