The usage of media blackouts seem to have gained in popularity as of late, replacing adamant denial with outright claims of ignorance. As reference, a recent undercover video of two individuals, posing as pimp and prostitute, received advice on how to evade taxes, legitimize an illicit business, obtain home loans, etc. from employees of the community organization ACORN. This incident would be small time at best, but considering that 40% of ACORN revenue comes from government funding, a person could easily expect headline news, although there was little beyond the broadcasts of Fox News.
The emphasis here is not on the short comings of competition or to lavish praise on a successful news outlet, rather the intentions of each side. Why would some groups ignore a breaking news story while others would trample one another to be first in line? The simple answer is motive: agencies tend to marginalize subjects viewed as damaging while approving of those that are profitable.
But here is where there is confusion: if an agency holds stock in 'truth,' the organization is obligated to follow it where it may lead, regardless of the implications it may reveal. So why is there hesitation on the part of some if a story is truthful? The answer of course is that the agency does not hold interest in 'truth,' but rather in advocacy. The honesty of a subject is often disregarded if the outcome is not in line with the agencies policies.
The end result is this: if we gain our information from sources that take pride in advocacy in lieu of honesty, the conclusions we make will be the culmination of ideological entrenchment as opposed to a firm grip on reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make a good point, but c'mon...who do you see as being above advocacy? Does that exist? Your example of Fox News as a reporter of merit in this case may be true, but I can also cite a number of instances where Fox _didn't_ report news, notably when GWB was president. Maybe the problem includes all major media outlets, or perhaps it includes our assumptions of news as not being "advocacy." How can that occur, practically, if we're all living human beings with viewpoints?
ReplyDeleteApologies for not noticing comments earlier. The intent of this article is not to propose attempts at non-attainable objectivity, rather an opinion on the change in formula for news broadcasts. In my experience watching old broadcasts, the news was rarely opinion based, and when it was the remarks were prefaced by the title 'editorial' or 'opinion.' Today, news anchors seem to interject their after thoughts more readily, where in the past musing would be corraled to the fringe. I fear that contemporary changes may lead to confusion on part of the viewer/listener as to what is 'fact' and what is mere 'speculation.'
ReplyDelete