Can we believe the National Press?
The press is accurate
Side Score: 6
|
 |
The press is inflamatory
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but only if you read broadly and reflect on what you hear. "The Press" does not speak with a single voice, or even from a single point of view. They compete with each other -- when one element of the press fabricates or distorts a story, you can be pretty sure that other elements will seize the opportunity to call them on it. Now, the press can be misled. But by and large I think there are enough independent and opposing voices in the US press that we can generally rely on them -- on the whole -- to pass along what they receive. But it remains our job to interpret what the press says and form opinions. Anyone who abdicates that responsibility, in my opinion, gives up their standing to be taken seriously when they complain. Side: The press is accurate
To an extent, the national press is accurate. Anything that is presented on it will generally be true, although there might be hints of bias (especially when a news reporter starts analyzing...). The problem however is that the national press cannot cover everything. The things they do cover lack sophistication, forcing a viewer who is interested in a topic to research it on their own. One cannot depend on the news to make a decision about anything -- while you could make exceptions for print media (since you can read, take notes, and reread), national television is a hopeless cause due to the short amount of time they spend on each issue. Side: The press is accurate
1
point
|
I have a very difficult time listening to the nightly news, reading the daily newspapers, and hearing news cast almost everyday. Why, because I do not hear the news but I hear the news being interpreted , formated, and opinionated by those relaying the news to me. Why can't I hear a news story one day with only the facts and no other statements to follow? I am very interested to know what is happening in my city, with my politicians, local schools, and the economy. However, every story is accompanied with spin. Todays news McClellan (facts or fiction?), economy (robust or recession?), gas (gouge or profits?), Why can't the press allow me to decide. I am experienced, I am educated, I am analytical, I am logical, I pay taxes, have not committed a felony, love my neighbor, and have strong morals. When did I become so stupid that I need some talking head to tell me what the news is???? Somebody out there HELP!!!! Side: The press is inflamatory
The concentration of media ownership reduces the diversity of information provided and reduces the accountability of information providers to the public. From my perspective, the ultimate consequence of consolidation, is a poorly-informed public, restricted to a reduced array of media options that offer only information that does not harm the media oligopoly's growing range of interests. Side: The press is inflamatory
2
points
I don't believe very much from the mainstream press. They seem to find a story and latch on to it tooth and nail. Can we believe the national press? I'd say no. I believe the more appropriate question would be can we "trust" the national press. I'd surely answer an emphatic, resounding NO. Side: The press is inflamatory
2
points
The Press these days exists to sell their wares like other businesses. The truth in most cases than one lies somewhere way below. There are very few in the national Press who report with integrity. We love to read the sensational and the press go all out to sensationalise the trivial. Side: The press is inflamatory
First, i would like to say that I almost did not contribute to this item because the 'sides' set for it are too subjective in nature and that lends to a regrettable slanting. I do not think the press is always deliberately inflammatory, though I do think they often seek ratings and market share and the requirements to gain it may frequently be interpreted as 'inflammatory'. This, of course, says much more about the common factors at play in viewership than of those who pander to those factors. I assert that any media in the world is now faced with a combination of factors for 'succeeding' in the market that necessitate a level of pandering to the lowest of our common factors rather than the highest of them. This, combined with the historic method of governments using media to present and perpetuate propaganda leads any insightful or wise individual to take anything they read or hear in the media with a grain of salt (or a block, if needed). Any group is made up of people who have much more in common with us (as humans) than not. This said, the abdication of personal responsibility to 'the group' is a documented thing and as is equally well demonstrated, groups will do things no individual would ever consider. (citation: Milgram, Stanley - The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963 Oct Vol 67(4) 371-378) This is as true of actions taken in the dissemination of information (or misinformation, as the case may be) as in any other output of a group working with multiple priorities and desires. The question of what one chooses to believe is highly problematic and a broadbased rejection of media is likely not the best approach. Rather, if one wishes to determine for oneself what is 'believable' and one knows the outlets of information are prone (for whatever reason) to bias, misinformation, or inaccuracy, the best process by which to distinguish kernels of truth (or believable information) is a comparison between many outlets with known differences in bias or perspective. At the end of the process, the things a story has in common across all outlets are most likely to be 'believable', and the underscoring of the differences is usually an enlightening thing as well. Side: The press is inflamatory
|
