During this friday's class, Mr. Bolos asked us to describe news sites like yahoo and AOL by associating each one with a different flavor of ice cream. I recall someone saying that they would describe them as Vanilla, Vanilla Bean, and French Vanilla, meaning that they had slight differences but were overall very alike. This idea got me to start thinking about similarities and differences in media sources. In many cases, a news story that may appear on television, like a local event that will be occurring or a crime that has been committed, can really only be presented in one way, through telling the viewer facts about the event. In an equally large number of news stories, however, there is some sort of conflict with two sides to it, that can be broadcast in many dissimilar ways or from opposing viewpoints. In this case it is up to the media organization whether to voice both sides of the issue equally and stay essentially neutral, or to take a side and explain why it has done so. Although some news organizations have gained a reputation for having more conservative or liberal views, almost all claim to be unbiased. I guess my ultimate question is: are we cheating ourselves by trying to be completely unbiased when presenting political news, when really it is impossible?
I believe it is possible to be unbiased while reporting the news. Newstations should focus more on reporting both sides to a story. For political interviews there should be correspondents on both sides of the political spectrum, therefore covering both sides. With fair viewpoints of both sides the viewer has the oppurtunity to make their own unique viewpoint on politics, rather than just siding with what they hear and not hearing the other political parties point of view.
ReplyDelete