Read the article linked below. Respond to the following points:
1) What seems to be function of the "press," given the incidents described in the article?
2) Do you believe a press that would function this way serves the public interest? Why or why not?
Your response is due no later than midnight Sunday, Jan. 26.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/02/259119343/how-the-media-comes-to-consensus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Andrew Ruiz
1.) What I seem to establish by reading this article is that the function of the press is to primarily but not only stir up a debate amongst people everywhere. At the same time though, I believe that the functionality of the press is based around what the majority agrees upon. Although the majority may agree on something it does not mean that it will not conjure up a debate. Overall as stated in the article "If it looks like a battle is lost, it's usually treated as lost. It's different than treating it as a live battle." Journalists tend to agree with the majority and this is what shapes the press.
2.) I do not believe that a press that functions this way deserves public interests. The reason for this is the fact that a certain story can be somewhat inaccurate if the writer is intending to fully agree with an audience. Perhaps certain parts of the story are left out because "its not what the reader is going to agree with." Furthermore i believe that although it may conjure up debate, it leaves less room to do so. Although different stories will always have a different view for different people i believe the press should always be something that is presented in a neutral manner so it can be debated about appropriately.
1) I read this article three times through to make sure I was really understanding as to what Greenblatt was saying. The “Leading From Behind” section is where I seemed to find the answer to this question. “Journalists do have a bias toward conflict – but do they have perfect timing? Can they catch the exact moment when a society agrees that conflicting points of view no longer merit discussion?” That is where I got the function of the press: to start a discussion, which to me is a polite way to say, to start a debate. He kept giving examples of “debatable” news issues and went on to say that the news companies only cover a story if it is going to create controversy, not just reporting a news story.
2) I do not believe this serves the public in any way. Yes, you get to hear controversial issues, but nothing else? If the public is in agreement of an issue, we don’t have the right to know about it? Of course we do. This means that the companies aren’t just reporting the news, they are deliberately picking and choosing what they want the consumers to hear, and in a good way, the way that they should be chosen. Plus each news station, depending on where they sit on the political spectrum, is going to feel differently about the same topic, so they will report different happenings about the same story.
1) The function of the press seems to differ depending on whether the controversy being discussed is a matter of opinion or a scientific fact.
I find it interesting that few seem to know that Nelson Mandela was the military leader of the ANC, and spearheaded dozens of non-lethal bombings aiming to sabotage the infrastructure of South Africa. I feel much of this can be attributed to the glazing over of history that death brings (no one says anything bad about the deceased at their funeral), but I feel that this was taken to an extreme with Mandela. I think the press failed to convey the legacy of Mandela accurately in this death.
The press's behavior after Mandela's death suggests they were simply reflecting the majority opinion. This is further reflected with The San Francisco Chronicle's "Double Victory" headline after Gay Marriage was legalized in California. In the latter case, the paper was reflecting the opinions of its readers. This initially seems ridiculous. The paper is acting like a politician more than a newspaper. A politician is supposed to act as a public servant, following the will of the majority of their constituents. A newspaper is supposed to give both sides of the story equal weight.
However, I can argue that, in a world where objectivity is but an illusion, the only thing approaching objectivity is mass cultural opinion. Under this argument, the Chronicle SHOULD treat the legalization of gay marriage as a triumph, since, at least in its local culture, this is the truth.
Of course, there are dissenters to this, even in San Francisco. Should they be given an equal amount of column inches, even though they are an extreme minority? Or should the Chronicle be more worldly, and reflect the views of the global community?
Of course, the majority of people in the world are probably against gay marriage, so The Chronicle would have to run an anti-gay header. This would sour a lot of their readership, and, we must remember that newspapers need to make money, like anyone else.
I feel that this could be ostensibly solved by The Chronicle NOT taking a side with their title. This leaves the rest of the article, however. Even if The Chronicle doesn't overtly take a side, the amount of inches they give to proponents and opponents of the legalization would bely whose side they are on.
Which leads us back to the question of how MUCH space the minority opinion should get.
If, say, 5% of the people The Chronicle interviewed were against the legalization, and the paper only had room for five quotes, would giving one of the quotes (20% of the quotes)to an opponent of legalization be biased AGAINST the legalization? Furthermore, if they gave both opinions equal weight, wouldn't they be even MORE biased against legalization?
I'm not entirely sure. I feel that, as described above, newspapers are almost FORCED to take a side by which side's opinion they choose to feature, even if they in no way editorialize. If we take the 'objectivity-as-cultural-opinion theory' to heart, which I am increasingly beginning to do, then the paper SHOULD quote the pro-legalization people more. Though I'm still against the Victory Title.
I personally don't believe that there is anything that is 'fact,' even in science, or, at the very least, if there IS scientific fact, we don't know what it is. Therefore, I believe that opponents of the theory that Global warming is human-caused should be featured in stories about the issue. (Even though I think they're idiots, personally).
To sum it up, the function of the press seems to be to reflect the cultural opinion of their readership, at least in issues that are undeniably open to interpretation.
2-
I think that the press reflecting the cultural opinion of its readership is doing as much as it can to be objective, weird as that might sound. What else is there?
If anything, this opinion of mine should be buoying, because I believe that a 'bottom-up' approach to things, wherein the consumer (or, 'the people') are in charge of things is better than a 'top-down' approach, wherein things are decided FOR them. The latter just seems very anti-egalitarian.
1.) The question regarding the function of the press, given the incidents, was summed up at the end of the first section: "As topics move from being controversial to receiving consensus approval, that raises a question about the nature of those judgments: do media outlets drive that shift, or merely reflect it?"
Essentially, does the media lend a hand in shifting those topics from controversial to decidedly one-sided? Yes, I think so. The role of the press (ethics aside) in this article has been to allow room for debate, but only to a point....once a general consensus has been reached among most publications (for instance, to borrow their example, that vaccinations are dangerous), journalists no longer delve into all of the sides of an argument and simply reinforce the generally accepted one.
2.) Absolutely not. Public interest, ideally, should be given a platform by journalists that provides all of the information necessary to truly inform themselves. Instead, different outlets follow one another, reporting from the same perspective and failing to acknowledge the entirety of their subjects.
1. After reading, “How Media Outlets Sometimes Agree To Agree,” and learning about the various political incidents regarding the role of press in society, I’ve come to understand that society itself influences what the media decides to portray to the public. It seems that the function of the press is to pay tribute to current issues that are stiring up debate in a community, thus taking that disputed argument and siding with whoever seems to steal the most public attention despite that there are still many who disagree with it. It’s apparent that the main idea here is to publish anything that gets people talking.
2. According to Audrey Cooper, managing editor of the Chronicle, "A media that hides behind the misguided notion that accuracy means giving equal weight to two opposing sides is not what this country needs or deserves." She continues, "I don't aim to have a newspaper that offends no one. I aim to have a newspaper that stimulates thought and debate while prioritizing accurate journalism." I strongly disgree with this notion that Cooper follows- of how the press seems to care more about what will seem more appealing to the public rather than staying true to the real facts of events. Media outlets tend to choose sides in whatever seems to have the popular vote, which constructs a sense of opinion in news rather than the actual truth. This goes back to a question stated at the beginning of the article, “As topics move from being controversial to receiving consensus approval, that raises a question about the nature of those judgments: do media outlets drive that shift, or merely reflect it?” Does media only acknowledge what this generation wants to hear and not what should be heard? And, isn't this creating harm?
1.) From what I've interpreted in this article, the function of the press seems to be to keep individuals interested in controversies whether they be modern, dug up from the past, open-ended, or already of consensus. It is the job of journalists to present factual information that may or may not be agreed on by the majorities and lay it out so that the average citizen can either pick a side or develop their own opinion. It may seem like the easy choice for us to simply let controversial subject matter that has found consensus rest, but regardless of whether or not it seems politically correct, that will not stir debate, keep things interesting, or sell papers.
2.) If this is the way that the press functions, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the public. It's almost like rather than telling them what they want to hear, ie. what the majority has agreed is the 'right' opinion (which also may not be the best answer), we decide to open an old 'can of worms' for the sole purpose of causing conflict. While it can be beneficial to keep people thinking, the fact that journalists and the press are supposed to be objective should mean that regardless of the sides, the information presented should represent both sides without bias.
The press should be discovering and reporting the truth, but in this manner it isn’t. Rather, the function of the press has become a twitter account, in that it is spitting out one-sided bits of information that the consumer believes as an absolute truth. The implications of this kind of reporting is a culture that doesn’t care about a higher, more sophisticated understanding of the given topic. By this, I mean that the press is holding our hand and feeding us rather than giving us proper context and undivided information so that society can actively make SMART democratic decisions. In this situation, the media yet again creates this ‘larger than life’ personality, making Nelson Mandela a kind of super hero that moves the American people (and gets good ratings too). I hope I’m not jumping too far ahead, but this reminds me a lot of what Neil Postman says about news becoming show biz. If the public’s interest is making informed decision than no, the press clearly isn’t serving us good, however, if the public’s interest is now to be entertained than I guess the press is doing a damn good job. I personally support Nelson Mandela's approach to fighting oppression, but nonetheless I also support our democracy and ethically reporting news.
1. The function of the “press” seems to be to present the story to the public, and create debate. However, it also seems that their function is to deem what the general consensus of people will agree with. In this particular case, with the death of Mandela, the media celebrated him for his achievements. Individuals who read about his death, or heard of it, made statuses or comments about his achievements as well. I witnessed this on Facebook, with statuses highlighting how great Mandela was. But these people are usually not educated on the entire subject covered. Instead, they rely on the source to give them their opinion, rather than questioning the validity. Most of the people who like to pretend they keep up with the news will post a short comment about the topic, without knowing all the facts or history. For example, I’ve seen this on Facebook with irrelevant statues, commenting about how the world will end from events like Fukishima, without knowing any science behind it. So, it seems to me that the press takes the role of choosing how, and from what standpoint the information will be presented in. However, the news also must stick to some code of ethics, in order to please the public as well, making it difficult to determine whether or not we influence this presentation of information. But on a side note, Mandela did pass away, and the general rule in society when death occurs is not to debate the negative aspects of the person, but rather to recognize and celebrate the good of the person.
2. At first thought I believe this function does serve the public’s interest because I think to large degree it reflects our influences and beliefs, therefore satisfying our desires. It is true that we all do not have the same ethical codes, but there are cultural ethics that exist in America that people agree on. For example, celebrating the good in someone when they pass. (Not to say this is true for everyone) But when I think about how I feel about it, I do not think it serves us well because I do not necessarily think that our values are correct. Because who’s values are the media even considering? Do the majority consider the middle class? Or the poor? I’m not really sure if they target a certain demographic, but there’s certainly a variation in political consensus that takes place in the newsroom (fox). The way the press chooses to release information does reflect the majority’s cultural ethics. For example, the importance of the tabloids that exist today. Without the large demand and population, I don’t think those magazines would be as prevalent. Yes, the news stirs up debates about information, but the way it is presented is normally one-sided. And the problem with that is that the laziness in Americans will stop them from formulating their own opinions or researching the topic further, therefore causing a society that is pulled in the direction of what the press chooses. Maybe we would be more informed about important worldly topics if the media choose what information was most important. But then would people even listen? Or would they still seek out the gossip and tabloids?
After reading this article it seems that today's function of the press is to create a one-sided debate in which stories are leading in favor of the general consensus. The press produces information in which the majority believes in, regardless if it is scientifically correct. The information that is being released often shows only one side of the issue rather than discuss both sides, creating a unhealthy and subjective medium for its audiences. Our press feeds the population with stories that "sell" instead of presenting accurate and important newsworthy information.
I believe that this type of press does not serve the public interest. With this style of showcasing information people have no room to make opinions for themselves. The press should be neutral parties in which people can seek to learn about both sides of the issue. Our press shouldn't be feeding us information but presenting it in a way that we can make our own decisions.
1) The function of the press is to reflect the present & general "feeling" of topics. In simpler terms, if person A is considered a terrorist by the general public, the press rides that wave of opinion. However if certain events take place where person A is no longer viewed as a terrorist, but a hero, journalists reporting will reflect that change of opinion.
2) No because when you talk about serving the public (everyone), you are not supposed to exclude anyone's opinion. Unfortunately this happens all the time nowadays, because the majority of the global presses are more concerned with receiving "hits" & "clicks" over covering both sides of the story. Yes it is important to reflect the dominant consensus of the time, but the other side must not be forgotten.
1) After reading the article, it seems to me that the function of the press is to cover stories where there are disputes and debates over controversial topics.
2)To me, the press does not serve the public interest. The press should still cover topics where even if there is consensus approval, they should cover both sides of the story.
just a quick reminder: two sentences rarely is enough to provide an interesting and adequate response. i expect a deeper engagement with the material of the course.
1. Based on the article, the function of the press seems to be one that writes and publishes one sided stories. Like they say, there's always two sides to a story but the press disregards this and instead writes about whatever the public's opinion is at the moment or issues that are creating controversial debates. It's even stated in the article, "There's an area of issues in society that we recognize in some way doesn't need diversity...We can be one-sided, in a way." The way I interpreted this was if there's a group of issues we can choose from, if it doesn't matter we don't write about it even though it's probably something really important. And that goes against the the SPJ code of ethics. Journalists are supposed to seek the truth and report it.
2. Press that functions this way should not serve the public interest because then they are just feeding them lies. Technically they aren't lying based on the stories they are putting out there, they're real in a sense that they are showing one side. But then they are lying because they aren't telling the whole story; they are excluding all sides of the story. They say they don't want to stir up any controversy but it shouldn't matter, I think they should stir up debate in society. Let people come up with their own opinions on different issues but first they have to write about all sides of the story.
1.) From the article, it seems the function of the press is to open up a debate, but also to take the side of the majority. The press reflects ideas that are widely accepted. The function of the press is to inform reader. But the press also functions to display ideas that the majority believes, as Daniel Hallin stated:"At that point, journalists no longer feel there's a dispute to cover." With this he was discussing civil rights but it can work with several topics. The press no longer functions to fully show both sides of the debate properly, it opens up the debate but quickly chooses a side.
2.) I do not think this serves the public. Topics that are two-sided are being treated as one-sided. Complete viewpoints are being forgotten about or ignored to in order to appease the majority. People are being misinformed which does not serve the public well at all.
1.) Given the incidents described in the article, the function of the "press" seem to be to start a debate between the people of our society. This discussion either ends in a consensual agreement or stirs up controversy on the topic. The "press" can be known to sway society's opinions on topics because of the media it puts out. People also sometimes chose to believe bias that they get from the media which sways people's decisions. What the media portrays to the public plays a huge role in the majority's opinion on a topic.
2.) I do not believe a press that would function this way serves the public interest very well. I believe that the people sending out news to us are responsible for sending out all true facts and accturate, non-biased information so that we as a society can properly make decisions based on how we are informed. The outlook or viewpoint of journalists can have a huge impact on how people make decisions if they only happen to get their information from that one source of news. I strongly believe that media gives out what they believe society wants to hear. Instead of informing us with accurate, important, relevant topics, we are sometimes more exposed to information that the "press" feels we want to hear. To me this should not be; we should be exposed to more information that is important for us to know and in a neutral way.
1.) Based on this article, the function of the press seems to serve as mirror to merely reflect on the majority of the public's opinion, and to serve as an outlet for the voices that are politically favorable for that particular news source-true or untrue, biased or unbiased. Furthermore, when Greenblatt states that "Journalists do have a bias toward conflict — but do they have perfect timing? Can they catch the exact moment when a society agrees that conflicting points of view no longer merit discussion?", one can figure that the functionality of press heavily depends on covering only the most controversial and relevant stories that will spark debate and trigger a reaction amongst people. In result, the essence of reality and neutrality in the news is lost, for the reason that viewers are only seeing sensational and controversial stories that are reported differently based on a news station's position on the political spectrum. Picking and choosing only the stories that conjure up debate, yet agreeing with the majority, is what tends to shape the functionality of the press.
2] I do not believe that a press that functions this way will serve the public in any positive form, for the reason that instead of fulfilling the purpose of journalism, to investigate and discover, it instead simply reflects on what has already been said, regardless if its true or not. Also, the information people receive from the press is in a way somewhat censored--viewers are watching only the "news" that the source wants them to see, which is swayed by partisan biased opinions that reflect only on the "debatable" and controversial news issues.
1. It seems like the function of the press is to shine light on areas in which controversy is caused. The media reflects society’s opinions and reactions. If the situation is no longer an issue there is no need for the media to still cover stories about it. As said in the article “Journalists reflect the balance of opinion among political elites, which in some cases shifts over time toward consensus”. After a while a situation or an event always dies out in time. The situations in which it still holds the public’s attention, is where the press seems to function. Instead of providing us with stories we could benefit from, we are used to seeing/hearing stories about how debatable President Obama’s bow was to Saudi Arabia a couple years ago (so irrelevant!). Meanwhile there are other truths and stories to be discovered around the world.
2. Unfortunately I don’t believe that the press functions to serve the public interest. The reason why is we’ve seen over time news stations will do whatever it takes to get the story first even if the information is not 100% accurate. If I want to obtain information about situations that are good or bad, beneficial or not I would want that info to be correct. "A media that hides behind the misguided notion that accuracy means giving equal weight to two opposing sides is not what this country needs or deserves” stated by Audrey Cooper I don’t really agree with her. I feel as if the media reports whatever story that will grasp the public’s attention, because without their attention media is pointless. I learned that discovering the fact that many of the wars we have gotten ourselves into have been persuaded to us by the presidential PR management.
1: After reading this article, I have come to the conclusion that the function of the "press" is to cause debate between the people that are paying attention to the news. I believe that the press tends to lead towards what the majority thinks, but at the same time will throw a wrench in the plans to stir the pot. Although Cooper, the editor of the Chronicle said she "aims to have a paper that stimulates thought and debate while prioritizing accurate journalism", I don't think that that is entirely true. I believe the press should print the truth without wanting to cause debate but that doesn't seem to be case in most papers today.
2: I do not believe that a press that would function this way would serve in the public's best interest. I believe that the press should always be honest and tell the story the way that it happens. But they instead write what will make them the most popular media outlet out there. That is not how the ethics of journalism work. Journalist are supposed to be non-biased in their writing and they are supposed to write with the intentions on America in mind. The press should "reflect an accurate diversity of the voices", not just what the majority may agree on.
The function of the press as stated in this article is to publish one-sided stories that then cause a debate amongst the readers. The press is supposed to be paying attention to what their audience’s views are on controversial topics, and then publish a story that coincides with those views. The press at times can be bias, and as a result changes a person’s opinion on a matter. The bias that some publications shows results in some people to not think for themselves, rather just believe what they are reading.
I don’t think a press that functions this way serves the public interest because the press should be presenting the public with the truth and then have them form their opinions. I believe analysts and columnists should be the only media members to express their opinions. Reporters should be presenting the facts and that’s it. This would allow the press to become much more credible.
1) What seems to be function of the "press," given the incidents described in the article?
The press has covered many viewpoints throughout the eras. Although news publications have covered similar topics over the decades, the opinions and views expressed in earlier editions seem to be lost in todays modernized sociological view. in regards to the views expressed about the million man march (and Dr. King's i have a dream speech), the view points of the press have changed with the national popular consensus. Although the press has displayed skepticism about civil rights and have subtly promoted segregation in earlier 20th century society, it is clear today that those viewpoints have been forgotten. It seems that the duty of the press today is to express only the politically correct viewpoints of society, and not entertain any outdated or socially unacceptable view points that may have been expressed by journalists in previous eras. Gay marriage when compared to the civil rights movement, is a perfect example of the press playing to the popular side and supporting the controversy of whichever political wing their writers entertain. conservative press treats the possibility of homosexual marital unions like the conservative press covered the civil rights movement. However the slow transition of the American public to more more modern sociological/political view points, will eventually cast a shadow over controversial journalism which argues the progress of american society. Much like the negative views of the Million Man March have been forgotten.
2) Do you believe a press that would function this way serves the public interest? Why or why not?
I believe the press is subjective. As a reader, it is totally up to one to decide what to read. With popular controversial topics like gay marriage being argued by both left and right wing press, the bias can be seen on both sides of the journalism spectrum. Conservative coverage of such topics can be infuriating to read by a leftist liberal, the same as progressive liberal coverage is as infuriating to read by conservatives.It is the duty of the press to give three distinctive perspectives, The left, the right, and the neutral. If you wish to only learn and not be persuaded by political perspectives, it is your duty as a reader to see the distinction between journalism that favors a specific side of the debate spectrum.
- Alex J. Schafer
(1) The quote that stands out for me: If it looks like a battle is lost, it's usually treated as lost. It's different than treating it as a live battle.
For me this is, unfortunately, the function of most press coverage in America. It seems as though that on the road to expose the truth, they've fallen victim the the changing times. Instead of exposing the truth, they are spoon feeding media consumers exactly what they want to hear in an effort to please everyone. (2) Unfortunately, this is a direct response to the hanging media landscape. Newspapers need revenue and hits to function--to get the most hits they try to provide something for everyone. I hate to risk paraphrasing The Dark Knight, but I think media outlets function as what the large portions of the public want, but not as what they need. And it's hurting us all, as is evident when an MSNBC reporter interrupts a congress woman for a "breaking report" on Justin Bieber. Another serious issue that the article brought up is that the media inaccurately summarizes important scientific facts in an effort the make the repots more digestible for the public and more 'hot.' Again, doing us all a disservice in the long run.
Before I start rambling, I'll conclude with a quote that best sums up how I feel: During my sophomore year Howard Good spoke on measuring success in journalism, "If everyone is mad at me from all sides, I did a right...or I just did a really shitty job."
From the reading of the article, it seems that there was this cultural events throughout the decades and for some people they either have respect or not respect to what has given. Reading the intro of the article, hearing what people has said out Mandela. But that was then, matters is the good that he has done for his people.
I don't think this article serves the public interest. I think, from what I think of this article, this is more a cultural situation than anything. I understand, that some people share there opinions, but not without there being a fact shown out.
1) “How Media Outlets Sometimes Agree To Agree” was informative in bringing attention to the political incidents that are important in influencing the press in America. There is no doubt that society sets the standard for what the press will portray. The press focuses on current issues, whether they are controversial or not, these current issues are usually front in center in popular debates. The objective, I believe often times, is to influence and gain the most attention from the public, whether the issue at hand is agreeable or not. These issues get people talking and distracted, which seems to be one of the main objectives of the press.
2) I do not believe it serves public interest, but more so the interest of society’s elite. The press is often misguiding. They shape the views and interest of the public and I feel there agenda is biased and highly influenced by society and other powerful entities that coexist with institutions of power.
Post a Comment