While reading chapter 12 in our Press book, the essay on "Mobilizing Citizen Participation" I began to think about this ideal of objectivity that media is supposed to aspire to. The chapter mentioned that overall reactions to reading newspapers are positive, but there can often be negative reactions to TV news. TV reporters seems to insert their own slanted views on the issues more so than newspapers.
But if the goal is to attract readers' attention and keep them informed of the current issues, then maybe a form of media that makes people a little angry is more appropriate. The reactions to newspapers that are striving for objectivity may not be negative, but I'd imagine there are far less reactions at all. When media strives to be objective and thus keep everyone happy, doesn't it allow for more passivity than if media leans to one side? Overly opinionated news programs may anger viewers who don't agree with those opinions, but they will have to be informed of the issues before they disagree with the news broadcaster.
Point being, before I continue to ramble, should objectivity truly be the ultimate goal if by not offending either side, it allows the viewers/readers to ignore the issues altogether?
No comments:
Post a Comment