November 1st - Snowflakes anyone?
As we get ready to close our study of those that influence the government a.k.a. linkage institutions, here is an article from that darn "liberal" media trying to stir up more anti-sentiment for the current administration.
or
As we get ready to close our study of those that influence the government a.k.a. linkage institutions, here is an article from that "4th branch of gov't" trying to make sure the public has the facts about what the gov't is doing.
From the Desk of Donald Rumsfeld
Read the article, you'll figure out where the snowflake reference comes from. Respond with your thoughts about the media's responsibility to the gov't and/or to the American people. (Don't tell me what you think about Donald Rumsfeld). Must be posted by the end of the quarter.
Also I have attached an article reporting on the confirmation hearing of Michael Mukasey as the next Attorney General. Feel free to reference this article for your response above. Keep in mind what your task is and what it isn't!!
Mukasey and Waterboarding
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 8:50 AM
28 comments
28 Comments:
It makes me wonder how much of these little quotes are actually in context. I think that if the media is going to report on a topic, they need to make sure that they're being completely un-biased so that the public is really getting the truth and not a fabricated form of it.
I think the reason that America is such a great country is that the media is not part of the govrenment and they can report on whatever they want to. Because of this the media needs to remain faithful to the media by checking their sources to make sure that they are reliable when dealing with the government. Due to the fact that it is hard to tell when the government is reporting the whole story or just little bits and peices.
Not to rain on your ideas or anything Mitch, but the government and the media are not as far apart as people think they are.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece
just a tid bit of that article..
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news.
The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.
As far as the media's responsability to the government/people, I think that the media should be divided into two different sectors. One that reports the news, and one that is more of an opinionated response to the news.
The part that reports the news should be strictly factual and inform the people of what is actually happening. If the media is going to take things out of context it is harder to tell what is facts from what is bias. For instance, a lot of the media think that we should pull out of the war on Iraq and report only negative statistics and commentaries because they say the soldiers are dying and don't want to be there. Yet I have spoken to many soldiers who have been over in the war in Iraq and would go back in a heartbeat. You don't hear about that type of stuff on the news. You don't hear that the soldiers in the war want to be there and would gladly go back to fight, and that people who are currently enlisting in the military are doing so voluntarily with complete knowledge of the fact that there is a very strong chance they will be sent over to Iraq.
I'm not saying we should take away the free speech and rights of the media, but I think that they have a responsibility to first present the facts and then once that is clear worry about presenting their opinions on it.
//Pamela Baker
p.s. sorry if this offends anyone :)
In this case, I think it was acceptable for the author to use "snowflakes" as a [partially sarcastic] way of attacking techniques used by Rumsfeld/the Government, but the idea of his article can be applied to the media as well. Though this is apparently not the case, it should be the responsibility of the media (and the government, for that matter) to do their best to provide us with accurate information, unaltered by fallacies, bias, etc.
I agree with what Shawn wrote, about the use of the term 'snowflakes' being appropriate. The article did not seem to be following too much of a bias in using this little jibe. In general this article fufilled its purpose well, it clearly stated the various opinions about Rumsfeld's defensive tactics. I can easily understand Rumsfeld's frusterations with the media for quoting (and perhaps quouting out of context) his comments. No matter how clear a statement seems to be, it is necessary to provide background information to prevent quoting out of context. This is the media's main resonsibility, to report factual, unbiased information. They do not have any more obligation to the government than they do to anyone else. Any news being reported should straight-forward. Whether or not the "whole truth" upsets people or government officials is not the issue.
I agree with Pam, that the first priority of the media should be to inform without imposing any opinions whatsoever. I felt that this article about Rumsfeld focused on one side, which the media often does. Only the bad memos he made were discussed in the article, which is unfair. The media needs to change so that what they report is fact. I also think that the media should not tell us everything. All information that is accessible to Americans is accessible to our enemies as well. The media should be more cautious with the information it publishes. Ignorance on some topics is a small price for the American public to pay in exchange for safety and security.
It appears to me that this is a case of the media trying to make the story out of some thinkg that wasn't there. DR did his job the way he thought best. The media should find stories instead of maked them.
Ben H
I think that the media's responsibility to the people is to uncover as much information as possible (even information our government doesn't want us to know), and try to present it to us in as objectively as possible. In this sense, I do agree that the media is the "4th branch of gov't" and has an obligation to the people to inform us when our government won't. I also agree with Pam's idea about the splitting of the media, and I am rather sad that we have no real news station that is rather free of bias.
As for the media's responsibility to the government, I believe that the media could be used by the government to broadcast a message, but any media source must remain independent from politics, in order to avoid as much bias as possible.
As has been said, the media's responsibility is to report facts in as an unbiased way as possible. That's the media's responsibility to the people. However, it seems that the media has no real responsibility to the government right now. There is no demand on the media for respect or confidentiality that can be enforced. That would be unconstitutional. The media should provide information about how the government is running, what it is doing. But again, that's its responsibility to the people, not the government.
In an ideal world, I would follow suit with the above posts and say that the media has a duty to present information to us completely unbiased so that we may interpret it to our tastes. We, however, do not live in an ideal world, and thus one way or another everything has to be subjective to some extent. This is why I really don't think that we have that huge of a problem with our media system. Taking the analogy that the media is the fourth branch of government... while the first three, legislative, judicial, and executive branches, are completely subject to political parties and special interests, why should the media then be this noble, objective entity? If we wanted the exact words, the exact information, then we can always watch C-Span throughout the day or spend countless hours on the U.S. Government websites, etc. What the media attempts to do is shape an opinion, so their responsibility, just as it is a democrat's responsibility in congress to be liberal (at least to some extent) or a republican's responsibility to be conservative (same restriction) is to follow their beliefs. If you want a conservative spin on news watch Fox, if you want to see a liberal newscast, watch CNN.
Furthermore, anyone who feels so strongly about these issues should not be gaining their information from only one source. For my purposes, I am comfortable with the information CNN presents to me because it accommodates my political beliefs. The only obligation the media has to be objective is one of morals, which in itself does not pose a very strong front.
To take the Mukasey case as an example, while I do not know specifically who Michael Mukasey is or what his credentials are, knowing this information about him reveals what matters most to me, as a concerned liberal. If I was truly passionate about this topic I would take the time to find out who he really was, but this bit of news caters to my media needs.
-->Yes, what I said will probably get ripped to pieces, but I'd rather say this than "/Agree with last 10 posts" ;)
Very intersting. I'm guessing that the article is analyzing a military perspective which would be very different than a civilian's. There is a lot of bias in this article that I wish were more cut and dry. Nevertheless it's up to the scrutiny of the reader. I believe media is just doing its job. Controversy sells. It is really up to the educated reader to find outliers.
While most of us would like to know little thing our government does, I sometimes am thankful that they do keep secrets from me. The average citizen doesn't need to know everything. I don't need to know about every underhanded thing my government does, as long as it keeps me safe in the end. That being said, I do appreciate the media reporting when some things my government does get out of hand. But they shouldn't just dig up stories for he sake of it.
Often when we consume media our brains are on autopilot. We don't question the accuracy of sources or the motives of the author and publisher, giving the media an enormous amount of control over our minds and opinions. It is nearly impossible to have a piece of news without any bias. Even the choice of the editor to cover a topic means that other topics were ignored. Therefore, we have an obligation to filter media as we consume it.
It is quite possible that I didn't really understand the article; however, this article made me think about what it was supposed to: the media's role in govt. and politics. I think that it's the media's place to inform the public about pressing issues and things that affect us; but that like Mark said, I do not need to know everything. Also though, if you're looking for unbiased information, the whole story and not just "snowflakes", then maybe you should find reliable sources to your liking.
i kinda agree with kelsey, (not even gunna lie) im not sure i really understood this article. as for the media in the government, i think it should be the media's duty to produce unbiased reports of whats going on so that the people have some idea, i disagree with what mark and kelsey were saying because i think its the medias job to report ever bit of news they have even if we may not need to know it. i also think that the media is failing miserably because it can be so biased like in this article so of the points Rumsfeld was making could have been right but the report was so sarcastic and i kinda think the washington post should be ashamed that they printed something so bias... sorry if nothing i wrote made any sense and was just plain wrong, i'm deprived of sleep due to papers and movie making
I think the media is a resource for the American people. Im not sure whether or not the media is always the best resource however. The media is biased on their opinions that they put out to the public. Quotes of what people say can be taken out of context just to catch the public's eye. The media is focused on getting public attention rather than reporting accurate news in my opinion. The media should work on its responsibility of reporting accurate information to the American public.
The media needs to be held accountable for what they distribute as news. Remember, free speech is protected only if it does not infringe upon the rights of other people. People have the right of access to the objective truth, not the truth as interpreted by institutions. The media should not be allowed to report half-truths or twisted-truths, for although it allows for sensationalism, a great marketing tool, it takes away from what is really important, and it restricts the people's access to the whole truth. Sure they can't tell people everything; it would take too long. But the meida should not be allowed to put information such as quotes out of context for the sake of creating a story and fueling big business.
Reporters should "report." That's it. If they want to create a story, then they should take to writing fiction or working for National Inquirer. Sure everyone brings along biases in their work, but the bias shouldn't control the story.
While it'd be nice, people don't have the "right" to objective truth, as Michael said. I don't even know what objective truth is anymore after reading all these posts. It's been said in pretty much every post so far, but all media is inevitably going to have some bias. They should try to be as objective as possible, but it's not always gonna happen.
The media is in the business of entertainment nowadays. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, these are all run by corporations who have interests too. In a corporation, money matters, and so ratings become the number one priority. People are more interested in opinion and so that's what they get. As Krishna said, if you want objective information, watch C-Span. It doesn't get any more objective than that, but no one watches C-Span because it's boring.
About what Pam said, news is the distribution of information and so the media decides what is important enough to report. That is usually where the bias enters the picture. Assuming her point that you don't hear about the soldiers who are glad to be fighting for our country, wouldn't that just be the same bias the "liberal media" has, but instead for the right wing?
About your point, go to foxnews.com for that
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201440,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211214,00.html
And about what Mark said, we can't just assume what the government is doing is what's best for us. He said he appreciates the media reporting when the government does "get out of hand," but when you're a 24-hour news station or a daily newspaper you've gotta fill that space with something. If you don't want to know everything the government is doing, don't worry there's a lot the media isn't privy to, but also don't watch the news. There are people who want to know what our government is doing and that's why the media is there, for them, so don't watch the news if you don't want to know.
Finally, about the article, it's been said that it's biased, yes. This should be under the editorial section, not the "Nation" section, but then those fox articles should be under editorial too, not "U.S." The bias runs both ways and both ways are not helping our country.
p.s. I wrote this at 6:30am so if anyone can use the lack of sleep excuse it's me.
I like what mark and emily said. All the little clippings sounded like the media was trying to stretch a bunch of things together and i may just be dumb but personally i didnt learn any phenomenal new things about my government from it. I still feel safe where i am and until i dont i think im ok with my government. It really just seems like another story to stir up more emotions.
ahh ton-ton we posted ours at the SAME EXACT TIME!!!
I agree with everything Tony said, I believe the media does have a little bit of a bias when reporting the news, but most of the time when they report the news, it provides the truthful base facts about what is going on. Like Haley said, I do feel safe with the information I am receiving, and it's not like the media has been hiding anything from the population lately.
Thank you for the first 23 postings but I am entering grades for first quarter so the rest of you missed out.
Mr. Thompson
I think the media has a responsibility to the people to be that 4th check on the government, however they also have a responsibility to not abuse that power in an attempt to mold the public viewpoint.
This article goes both ways. It's a good thing to know when an influential member of the government might be a little off his or her rocker, however, I did sense some bias in the article. Perhaps the author tried to aid in pushing Mr. Rumsfeld off the rocker...
And oh tiddly-winks.
Wish I'd known i missed my shot before I invested quality TV time into reading that.
The media has no responsibility to anyone, except that when they choose to provide information it needs to be correct. All you kids who talk of media being biased are crazy. Why can't media be biased? Who is to stop them from sharing their opinions? The media has no obligation to inform us! As American citizens, it is our responsibility to analyze information, distinguish facts from opinions, and stay informed. The media is just one tool that helps us do that, (granted without them we would be screwed) therefor since we choose to utilize them, we can't really complain about anything they say.
As to medias obligations to government... also none.
Just like citizens, media is free to do whatever it wants, within limits.
... but good luck finding information any other way. :D
GO AMERICA!
By the way Mr. Thompson,
I still deserve credit, the entire time between when you made this post and closed grades I was in excruciating pain (unconscious, but still in pain) and unable to complete the assigned task in a timely manner.
NOT FAIR!!
Forgive me? :)
-tricia
Post a Comment
<< Home