http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/57Channels.html
I guess that impartiality is coached in journalism school and that students are often taught to remain as objective as possible. One thing is for sure; if you want to raise the dander of a reporter, challenge their objectivity. Everyone is human, perceptions will always vary and as passive as this might sound there will always be questions about how fair articles are written. Words or text don’t always express all of the facts or all of the emotion. I guess we shouldn’t shoot the messenger for what he says is the news, but there’s no reason why we should always buy what they are selling if it isn’t truthful, complete or if its purpose is not just to inform but to get us coming back for more. Fear, uncertainty and doom are infectious.
There’s a constant challenge to writing or recording events that will be broadcast to the masses. When attention spans (or a lacking one) require that segments or articles be edited, once what could have been replayed or recited verbatim evolves into something less than scientific or more like a work of art. Not knowing the truth and reporting/repeating allegations has become the new variation of lying (when truths are easily verified, i.e. "Rathergate")
Many factors affect the “art” that some media types call “reporting” today. The competition for ratings and revenue drives rival agencies and channels for something more or different or spectacular. The escalation process is endless and the variations are infinite. The stories are different but over time they all blend together unless the media does something to make them stand out. Different people and different subjects are reported. Each article gets its own title, date and byline. Many titles are purposely incomplete or sensational so as to encourage our curiosity (attention). These titles become teasers and their correctness is secondary to their purpose, which is to gain interest in what’s been published.
Somewhere in this strange mix of events, the real story takes a distant second place. Truth if it is ninety nine percent of the equation gets only half of the coverage. Since when did “fair” mean that each story should be split into two equal halves (pro and con) and the judgments and reasoning behind conclusions are merely “reported” but not challenged. Truth becomes diluted by hype and obfuscated with lies. Truths that give confidence or reduce anxiety get less exposure so that some stories might live longer.
One has to wonder what the agenda of the news services has become now that we have fewer outlets and the stakes in the competition are just that much higher. The price of not triggering doubts can cost newspersons their jobs. News is not news anymore. It has become more “crafted opinions packaged in partial facts or recent happenings”, but it’s not always real or comprehensive information on a singe subject or event. It’s what two sides with an agenda with equal time and space have to say in a 30 second sound byte. It’s about how a woman or a gang member mutilated a male victim’s genitalia, a beheading, a suicide bombing or just another murder on the wrong side of town by one of the usual suspects. The same old lies about global warming or pollution get repeated (over and over and over again).
What have we (the public) become when pedophiles and murderers are the main news? 57 channels and nuthin’s on… just because that’s what the media’s selling doesn’t mean we should be buyin’… put the needle on the record. Time for something "new".
