A number of people commented on my posts about sources of unbiased information on health care--seems there is a consensus that such information is at a premium.
I got to thinking about this question, and it occurred to me that private news media should be such a source of information for average people--in theory, the media sees itself as an institution that passes on comprehensible and balanced information about political topics to normal people. Is this any longer the case, however?
I remember once upon a time when CNN was such a source of unbiased information (a time before FOX and Bill O'Reilly), but those times are long gone, and don't appear to be coming back.
There was also a time when people believed that the internet (and alternative sources of information like blogs, etc.) would replace profit-seeking media with another model. This may ultimately prove to be true, but the problem is that internet media models mostly seem to segment people into similar ideological groups. People read the stuff that interests them, not the other side, so we all get more polarized in the process. I find that this is true of my own blog reading, though it's not a particular ideological slant that I have, but I mostly read Political Science and Latin America stuff, with the occasional nerdy comic strip thrown in.
5 comments:
This is so true. I'm not sure as to how creditable it is but I found this list online.
http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/9956/News++Weather/A+list+of+Slanted+Media+Bias+TV+networks+newspapers+magazines+etc.aspx
Also I completely agree upon how people only read things that interest them. Within my own personal reading on the internet I usually only read things about energy and the environment. I don't put much though into to other policy issues.
This happens because most people are either lazy (thats me) and don't have time or they just like to live in their little bubble and don't want to even hear about the other side of the story.
I also couldn't agree more. Less of an emphasis on learning current issues in both american politics and globally are becoming increasingly common. However, I would also argue that the media has a tool for persuasion in most its pieces. More than often it may not be a credible source for the information needed. But I also do agree that lots of times we spend only reading and engaging in the information we find most interesting. This is bot bad and good. Where we could find ourselves really knowledgeable in topics dealing with our career fields at the same time we may fall short of a well round understanding of other fields of interest.
Glenn I could not agree more. When ever I attempt to read the news online I pick out the articles that I agree with and only the ones I am interested, but even more than this I go to the site that I know I like. I think that nothing can ever replace holding a newspaper in front of you, because you will see headlines that you would have missed viewing online and find articles you otherwise would have skipped. Maybe I will try to make a valid effort to reach out and to try to read something I know nothing about and "no interest" in, who knows it become my favorite new topi.
In most ways I agree, we tend to focus our browsing on topics that we are interested in and viewpoints we agree with. However, I think the internet can help combat that. A homepage for BBC (CNN is a bit too ridiculous now...) will stream 'one-minute' news and have side-links on topics I'd never think to click on. Sometimes I do because I'm curious, but even if I choose not to click on the blog about something I disagree on, I'm still subjected to the headlines, so I'd get more exposure to different views - if only by a little. I guess I can only hope some internet news sources remain unbiased.
Often my mom will ask me about an important situation reported in the news and I will be shamefully unaware of even the existence of such an event. There was once a time when families watched nightly news together every night because that was all that was on. Now, the variety of avenues of information has put real news in the passenger seat, and replacing it in the drivers seat, as unsubstantial as it is, sits entertainment. Its not that people don't care whats going on, its that there are so many choices of where to find information, the "important" information gets quickly overlooked. For example, when you look at "Yahoo! news" the first thing that might pop up is a story about Spencer and Heidi. A couple of clicks later you may find a paragraph about healthcare or if you dig deep enough Iraq. Would decreasing the amount of news avenues help put pressure on reporters to report credible news and help individuals become aware of important issues? Can we find a way to formally distinguish between news vs. entertainment? Would it be a violation of rights to make yahoo! drop the word "news" from "Yahoo! news."
Post a Comment