Television news should be expected to present both sides of an issue.
Describe a specific situation in which television news might not be expected to present both sides of an issue. Discuss what you think determines when television news should be expected to present both sides of an issue and when it should not.
___
The freedom of the press plays an integral part of a democracy. In particular, news reporters and journalists serve as a check to the power of lawmakers/executors by informing citizenry about their actions. Citizens, in turn, can act on these reports by selecting who should represent them in the government and pressuring lawmakers to make certain decisions. Ideally, reporters should strive to be objective as possible when presenting news; that is, they should present various points of view on a certain event. That way, readers will have a chance to process a balanced perspective of an issue. In recent years, however, one-sided punditry has become very popular with audiences. Journalist, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, have risen in fame as they blatantly feed viewers with ideas that come from a limited perspective.
Before the rise of the internet, news sources were relatively limited; people received news from a few major television networks and newspapers. It could be argued, therefore, that it was more important back then for reporters to strive to present different sides of an issue. Television networks received a larger percentage of the population's attention (compared today); their audience did not have a wide range of news sources to choose from. In order for people to become well-informed and have the ability to objectively judge their government's actions, it was important for television networks to present the news in the most objective way possible.
In comparison, the citizenry today can choose from an unlimited amount of news sources. The internet has broadened the availability of news but people can still rely on television and printed sources for information on the world. Television reporters, due to the vast sources of news, have less of a responsibility to present both sides of an issue. In fact, one-sided punditry has become a very popular form of news. That is, certain news programs present only a conservative or liberal point of view of current events. They do not purport to be objective and blatantly serve as public relations for certain political parties. This form of news present guests who passionately advocate for their point of view and mainly attracts viewers who hold the same perspectives. On sided-punditry also provides television networks with a "cheap" way to attract viewers, while saving on costs required by presenting objective news (e.g., investigative reporting, overseas bureau reporting, etc.).
At times, news programs that present a limited view point purport to be fair and objective. This is very misleading and can do a disservice for viewers who wish to gain a full perspective of an issue. One-sided news programs should be upfront about their type of reporting by at least not claiming to be objective. Despite the wide availability of news sources today, some news programs still fortunately aim to provide viewers/listeners with different points of views. For example, NPR and PBS news hour often invite guests of opposing sides to debate the issues of the day. Viewers can make well-informed decisions about the issues by evaluating the various arguments and choosing the side the resonates most with them.
Despite the availability of various news sources, it is important for objective news reporters to attempt to reach wider audiences. A citizenry fixated on one-sided news will not have the opportunity to think for themselves and make "balanced" decisions about the political arena and their daily lives. They will confuse partisan punditry with actual news.Indeed, journalism organizations and training centers should continue to advocate for the "balanced" news format in order to ensure the strength of our people and democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment