1. (Capitalized) A member of a warlike Thessalian people who followed Achilles on the expedition against Troy.
2. A loyal follower, especially one who executes orders without question, protest, or pity.
~~~~~~~
Continuing with the inherent problem with journalism in mass media, I think that in essence when filtered through sieves of financial necessity, even attempts at objectivity are undermined by supplying reader (and corporate/political) demands. However, hopeless as it might seem that mass media will never attempt objectivity under these prescriptions, I think there is a possible solution.
Financial motivations can, even at the expense of other motivations, take precedent in selling newspapers or advertising on a television broadcast. If no one buys the newspaper, then no opinion gets out—biased or otherwise. If
Journalism in the mass media (and not necessarily elsewhere, as well as exempting, for the most part, the internet) requires patrons to survive. Interference on a higher level is a problem, but I think it might be an even greater problem that, in pandering to our interests, we receive fluff. Were our interests, what make us buy newspapers and watch the news, more in line with objective reporting, media would be forced to change. I think that’s an important distinction to make, because the paradox of journalism (which should attempt objectivity) needing necessarily to be owned by a financially successful company is undermined in its more honorable pursuits only with its audience’s compliance.
3 comments:
I think that objectivity in everyday life, yet alone the media, is a very hard commotidy to come by simply because we are all inclined to present ideas and facts in a certain manner. However, I think with further editing of newspapers and other forms of media the mass media industry would be more apt to present news items objectively, but in the interest of efficiency the large corporate media outlets do not spend the time or extra resources on this because of the importance of the bottom line. To counter this problem the government should place restrictions on the media stating that news media can only be a not for profit industry. Although this would dwindle our sources of news media for a time period I think in the long run it would be beneficial to institute a similar policy. And until that point I don't think any source of media will be able to tackle the problem of objectivity; in other words, money needs to be taken out of the equation, but it is a formidable feat in today's society due to the corporatist and highly industrialized society we live in.
I did not mean to imply objectivity could be ascertained--merely that the journalists should hold themselves to higher standards of seeking it, demanding to at least attempt to remove their bias from their articles. Similarly, we as the public should seek more objective material. I agree that money is a problem to the successful of reputable journalism. It will indeed be difficult to reverse how corporate the current world is, if it's possible at all (I think it is).
As I wrote in response to John's last posting, an objective media is a boon only to a critical public.
Post a Comment