Sunday, April 12, 2009
DQ for April 14th
In chapter 4 (on page 124) Bill Green starts to explain the meaning of on the record, off the record, and other systems that reporters use to collect information. He says these systems are necessary to receive information, but readers may begin to question the credibility of the source. Later on, the book mentions "readers and viewers are asked to trust reporters and to take their news judgments on faith". Do you fully trust the media? Why or why not?! Bring in outside examples and explain your reasoning with statements from the book
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To answer this question is difficult because it seems that I would trust the media, being that this is where I receive majority of my information about what is going on throughout our world. However, when I think harder about whether I trust what is being presented to me in newspapers and news broadcasts, I begin to see that I don't fully trust every piece of information that is given to me through reports.
ReplyDeleteLast semester, I took a class on communication law that outlined the basic freedoms given to us in the constitution. These basics covered a good amount on reporter's rights and, as stated in our text, the common conflicts that arise with the individual's right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, and national security. We learned that reporters had no more constitutional rights than the public did, but in a lot of the trials regarding the common situations stated above, it seemed that there was always a way for the reporter to slide by if he/she reported inaccurate information. Therefore, this is one reason why I am hesitant to trust everything the media tells us.
Also, another reason why I don't fully trust the media is due to the fact that most reporters, not all, but most, are in this business to fight for getting the best story and the most news coverage. Sometimes, that means that reporters go beyond their ethics, and do whatever they can to make a good news story, and this may often times mean exaggerating or making situations out to be more than they actually are. An example of this is something we all saw during our flood flight. Yes, the flood was not a good situation by any means, but as we discussed in class, a lot of the national reporters were making it out to sound like the entire city was on the verge of evacuation. This was definitely something that caught many people's attention, which is what these reporters wanted.
All in all, to fully trust the media is difficult because I know the competiveness of the business and the want for the most viewers, therefore I often wonder how much exact truth comes out of certain news stories.
In a general format, I trust the media. The way I see it, reporting the news is their job and just like I would trust a financial adviser to tell me how to make good financial decisions, I trust the media to give me accurate news.
ReplyDeleteAlthough a reporter may not always be able to release who their sources are, they are under the pressure of finding good sources. I am not saying that I trust tabloids when they say, "a source close to the celebrity" but many times, a source wants to protect their identity because they are close to the story. This is an understandable aspect as many stories would never get told without the words "a reliable source".
In the book, they talk about a backgrounder and deep backgrounder. These terms were relatively unfamiliar to me but they seem to make sense. I am in favor of a backgrounder but a deep backgrounder makes it seems ominous when they say it is known as in everyone knows it. The concept of a deep backgrounder almost makes it sound as though everyone who knows about the subject is in agreement on the subject.
Although there are a few bad apples (as in any profession) I generally believe the media to be true. I think to be that critical about media is overly cynical and unnecessary.
I think being a media student, it is harder and harder for me to trust the media. In our classes we have learned how to edit articles or videos and quote people to get the story we want. If it isn't interesting, it doesn't sell.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the biggest examples to look at right now with unreliable media is when it comes to gossip magazines and news networks they claim this celebrity is pregnant or this one is going to rehab. There are so many times that they spin stories just to sell.
When it comes to television editing, things that stick out to me is one example I saw on the Real World. A member of the show was very upset because the way MTV edited their show, it made her seem like the b**** of the house because they didn't really have one and they needed one to make the house seem more interesting.
I know there are many Lindsey Lohan examples, but I specifically remember when the writer for Vogue I think it was edited her story to make her say that she had an eating disorder when she really didn't say it.
Then there is the example we talked about in class with the Fargo flood and the way the national media made the flood look like it had completely flooded the city of Fargo.
I'm not saying I don't trust all media, but I do analyze it more then I ever did before and that is because I am going to college in a media related career. I think I would trust it more if I didn't study it.
Before attending classes as a communication major I generally trusted the media. Now after analyzing the media in classes, I am more skeptical on the truth in media. The media determines what we should read and know. Journalists determine how they want to inform the public and how positive or negative they want an issue to seem. You can manipulate any issue to seem better or worse than it actually is. Every journalist is out there to make their story get the most news coverage in order to survive in the business. Sometimes, this means doing anything to get the best story even if it goes against their ethics.
ReplyDeleteIn March of 2008, Barack Obama’s foreign-policy adviser, Samantha Power, stepped down after she was quoted in an article for calling Hillary Clinton “a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything.” Since she said it was suppose to be “off the record”, the journalist was not to include it in the article.
In the book on page 124, Bill Green discusses the meanings of “on/off the record” and a “deep backgrounder.” After reading this, it really made me question how much is really said “off the record” that the public never gets to hear.
Is this ethical? I believe that statements made “off the record” show the true feelings and opinions of people and should not be disregarded. Samantha Power obviously truly felt that Clinton was a monster otherwise she would not have said this and stated it to be off the record. I do understand that people in the limelight deserve their privacy, but what about the golden rule ‘If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.’ I feel because of the “on the record, off the record” the media is withholding information from the media. Often people’s true feelings come out when they think the media is not listening.
I think it is impossible to know if the media is telling us the truth or not. But, I have to trust the media for the most part because that is the only way I receive information.
I do not fully trust the media. I think it is almost impossible to be completely objective when reporting a story. After you feel informed on a subject, I think it is hard not to feel passionate about one side. Eventually your reporting will sway to that side whether you are aware of it or not. This One page 124, our textbook says “viewers are asked to trust reporters and to take their judgments on faith.” Therefore, reporters’ opinions are destined to be biased because we have to trust their “judgments on faith.” is one reason I do not fully trust the media.
ReplyDeleteAs Bill Green explains the rough categories of attribution, he says this form of vocabulary questions credibility. I understand how using a deep backgrounder would cause people to wonder who the source is and how credible the source is. Every person has a different idea of how credible a person is. For example, in the book An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, Gore mentions what Jimmy Kimmel said on his show and used that as evidence to support a claim against George W. Bush. To me, Jimmy Kimmel is not a credible source, but to Al Gore, he is. Therefore, I agree with Bill Green in saying using information from a backgrounder calls on the audience for an act of faith.
Overall, I do not trust the media and this is one reason I find it hard to watch national news. I know no matter which channel I chose to view, the stories will be slanted one way. Eventually it becomes too overwhelming to try to decipher which part of reporting is the truth and which is a reporter’s judgment. As communication majors, we all know how persuasive language can be, and we also know how arbitrary it can be. Therefore, I don’t trust the media.
I don’t fully trust the media, but to an extent I do. I don’t fully trust the media because of examples of “breaking news” situations when something has just happened and the media doesn’t have all the information necessary to present and informed story or like the book says, situations with unmentioned sources.
ReplyDeleteWhen the book says, “readers and viewers are asked to trust reporters and to take their news judgments on faith” it makes an obvious statement saying that news reporters shouldn’t be completely trusted in what they report. Following something someone else says or does by faith can led to false hope in a situation or false information about information. If everyone followed the news media by faith, there is the chance that there would be an extremely misinformed public.
I think it's hard for any public relations student to say that they fully trust the media. Like many others, I did not really think about the fact that the news was edited to serve a specific purpose. However, after taking some public relations classes, I've seen pre-packaged PR videos that are runs as news stories on the local news. Growing up, I never questioned how WCCO in Minneapolis had video footage from Washington, D.C. or another big city across the country, but I now see that this footage was probably from a company that wanted some PR.
ReplyDeleteThe book talks about backgrounders and deep backgrounders, two terms I am not familiar with. In figure 4-1 in the book, the example caption for backgrounder says "A knowledgeable source said..." What is the criteria for a 'knowledgeable' source? Who decides who is knowledgeable and who isn't? Do all media outlets use the same criteria for evaluating sources? I would have to say no. Gossip magazines that present stories as news probably have a lower standard than reputable newspapers such as The New York Times or The Washington Post. It seems that gossip magazines will say things like a source close to the celebrity or something like that or a source who knows the celebrity. But that could mean that they person saw the person at a coffee shop two weeks ago.
The book also talks about the Internet, but that is another example of where people should be cautious of the information they read. Anyone can post anything on the internet, and they can make it as official looking as possible.
I think it's impossible to fully trust any media source, regardless of its reputation, because every person has their own individual bias and it is impossible to completely remove that from a story.
When posed with the question: Do you fully trust the media? My immediate answer is: yes, because I have to. For example, I could not have possibly known about the Somali pirates capturing and holding a U.S. Naval Captain without the news media to tell me the story, because it would be unreasonable for me to travel to the coast of Africa due to costliness and personal danger. In order to find out information on the situation, I was required to rely on and trust in news outlets for my information. In the news stories about this situation, reporters used partial citations such as those mentioned in the book, “Democratic sources in Congress…” or, “…a political consultant not affiliated with either campaign…” (as opposed to full names and credentials). One such example comes from an April 11, 2009 article on CNN.com, when information was cited as from “…a U.S. official familiar with the situation.”
ReplyDeleteThe book states that Green acknowledges the fact that using information off the record (without complete citation) creates questions of credibility, but also acknowledges that this system of partial citation is “necessary to elicit information that would otherwise be inaccessible.” While consumers of news “are asked to trust reporters and to take their news judgments on faith,” we can find comfort in knowing that the ultimate goals of any reporter are to protect the democratic process and to attain high ratings. The goal of attaining the highest rating causes the public to feel hesitant toward the information at hand, but if one news outlet reports the wrong facts, other news outlets will find out quickly and will report the discrepancy of information presented by the first news outlet. If the news staff (including the reporter) obtain, write and report bad information, not only is the reporter putting his or her own job and reputation in jeopardy but the entire news outlet as a whole. The writers of material for the reporters know that it is in the entire company’s best interests to present the most current and up-to-date information the outlet has at the time. In other words, it is in our best interests to place trust in the media companies to provide the most accurate information available to them at the time.
I would also like to note that while it IS unconstitutional to stifle a reporter from reporting, it is NOT unconstitutional for sources to withhold information from reporters to retain anonymity. Therefore, sources have the freedom to choose to withhold information rather than require that it not be reported. I believe that by reporters using phrases such as those previously mentioned (from the book) to cite their sources, reporters and the sources are able to negotiate with one another so that the best interests of everyone are preserved—the reporters retain credibility, the important business of the source is not hindered through loss of anonymity, and the news consumers get the best information available as fast as possible, preserving the democratic process.
I think it is unrealistic to trust the news media whole heartily. Because we as humans tend to participate in media that reinforces our already existing beliefs, if we fully trust the media our ability to differentiate between news and lies is skewed.
ReplyDeleteIt is also hard to be fully trusting of the news media because we often miss words such as "It is know" or " it is believed that..." and we often take the phrases that follow as truth.
On pg 125 they say, "..Viewers are asked to trust reports and to take their news judgments on faith, a situation that makes reporters extremely vulnerable not only to manipulation but also to backlash from the audience." As a journalist myself, this is a very true statement. When we develop news stories and choose what to cover we are doing so in the good faith that it is something the read will like to hear.
As nice as it would be to say the general public trusts the news media fully, I think it is unrealistic and would be damaging to the country and the world.
I trust the media, but only to a certain extent. Just like a lot of other postings stated, taking communication related courses in which we analyze the media and their motives definitely makes me think more about the stories I read/hear.
ReplyDeleteI find the statement on page 125, "Readers and viewers are asked to trust reporters and to take their news judgments on faith, a situation that makes reporters extremely vulnerable not only to manipulation but also backlash from the audience," to be very true.
I have one example that comes to mind to illustrate why I only trust the media to a certain extent. Some friends of mine were interviewed for a story featured in a newspaper; and when the story was published, their quotes had been changed, not by much, but just a few key words to spin the story how the reporter wanted. Another example is the coverage of the flood in our area and how it was shown to be not completely accurate.
As much as I would like to say I fully trust the media, I can't say that I do. I'm not saying I don't believe anything the media says, I'm just saying that I do not necessarily believe EVERYTHING they say either.