Mass Media: Where do we draw the line?

There is always a lot of controversy where the mass media is concerned. Whether it's television, tabloids or the Internet, their main focus always seems to be sensationalism. The majority of the time, the media portrays things in a negative light, sometimes even twisting the truth to a point where it barely resembles what was originally reported. It battles the current issues of society, not in an attempt to solve them, but in an effort to attract eager and vulnerable viewers. Statistics and well thought out arguments can be convincing, even if no truth lies behind any of the ideas being put forth, especially to someone who is uneducated on the subject.

My question is, where do you think the line between reality and fiction should be drawn? Most of us will watch the news or read a paper and take what is being said with a pinch of salt, but do you think there are some issues that should not be tampered with? Do you think there are some things that should be reported regardless of shock value and trends?

One of the most common phenomena of the mass media is exactly that. Trend reporting. Once one source begins to concentrate on a topic that is either popular or controversial, others begin to follow suit. This is not necessarily because they are the biggest or most life threatening problems facing the world, but because they are gripping. All of those equally shocking, previously report incidents are still happening all around us, but due to what is currently dominating the press we are put under the illusion that they have lessened.

Another thing that is widespread for all media is that they never convey the full story, even where their most profitable subjects are concerned. Since their main aim, above giving information, is revenue and ratings, they may not always show what is really happening. If murders are being committed every day, they are likely to only report the most appalling and extraordinary for the sake of publicity.

The media also tends to let celebrity scandal take precedence over real world issues. When someone who is idolised does something extremely outrageous or obscene, things like war and disease seem to take a back seat.

Is it justifiable though? Is showing people what they want to see really how the reporting media should be approached?

I would really like your opinion on this. To be perfectly honest, I can’t even watch the news anymore, because I know that what they are reporting is only the half-truth. They leave out a lot of details, twist what people say, and emphasise the bad. Is that really what we should look up to in society?

Unfortunately, yellow journalism has been around for ages.

It seems like you'll have to look for what you're looking for in order to find out the entirety of the story (and even then that might be too large to swallow without some organization). That's also a problem, considering what other stories are there to know if you don't even know about them in the first place?

All I have to say is keep an open mind, and know your play on words and stuff. For an extreme example, in Washington state, there was a gubernatorial race between Christine Gregoire (Democrat) and Dino Rossi (GOP) for governor. In the last few weeks of the close race, there were ads saying that Dino Rossi wanted to lower minimum wages (along with limiting health care and women rights). That just ruined Dino Rossi. But the basis for the minimum wage "fact" was that Dino Rossi wanted to include a mandatory sub-standard wage for job training for teens, which may or may not include pay without the measure.

I personally like to look at the editorial to get other people's views on things. Often times what they're talking about is sorta a surprise, because I would have never heard of it before xD

I've pretty much given up on the media anyway, because it's all so clearly biased and sensationalise.

I've noticed a lot of the media's influence in the recent New Zealand elections. A few parties that should've been able to get a seat in parliament didn't, because the polls were showing they weren't going to, so people decided not to vote for them if there was no chance of them getting in. What if the media hadn't shown that? We could still have a Winston Peters!


Although, I do have to say, it was good of the local newspaper here on 9/11. It happened a little after the presses closed here (I think it was 2am NZ time, about when the presses close), so they distributed an extra, free, newspaper in the afternoon to cover what had happened. Never seen anything like that any other time.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]I hate how the news reports on who slept with who

I doubt that many peopel give a flying fawk. Do your dam job and tell us what's happening, not whose gonna be having babies soon[/COLOR]

Great example of this is Fox News' "discovery" of Obama's terrorist fist bump.

Too bad it was just a pound.

I like this kind of news. It is good for diluting our minds. It makes America (and the world) appear as its true self, shallow as hell.

Great example of this is Fox News' "discovery" of Obama's terrorist fist bump.

Too bad it was just a pound.

FOX News should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, as they are pretty biased towards the American political right. Nonetheless, they were the ONLY news source keeping accurate tallies of third-party candidates in this past election.

Which brings out another point. The media did a pretty good job of keeping any third party candidates out of the spotlight, and thus further diminishing their chances of being seen and heard. The requirements posed to those who wish to be placed on the ballot are hard enough not to be totally blocked from the media and kept out of debates. I'm willing to bet that the Nader/Gonzalez ticket would have received more than 0.93% of the vote had they been given fair coverage by the media. Nonetheless, I voted for Nader, and I certainly haven't lost any sleep over it.