What strikes me the most about news in the U.S. versus new from BBC is that BBC seems to be promoting unbiased information, unless you are looking for an opinion article. Most news sources in the U.S. are supporting one political party or other and almost all articles contain a detailed description of what we should be doing, because of x...y...z. This is my biggest problem about the news I read in America, rather than bringing me the information and letting me make up my own mind about it, they tell me what to think and why. I have a strong distrust of news, because I have no way of knowing, without major research and a gut feeling, which sources are owned and therefore controlled by the government or a political party in the US. Articles in the US are all about headlines, because people are always moving or working to get somewhere, so we don't read news unless the headline interests us. Generally these headlines openly support one way of thinking which already puts me off reading them and causes me to be suspicious. The way the news is handled in America is very indicative of Americans. We have are opinions, our country was founded on us having a differing opinion, but when it comes to news I want to read about the news and not the editors opinion of the news.
Fergusion, MO is a great example of this. There is so much press about what is happening, how, why, and the moralities of it. I live in Webster Groves, a 20 minuet drive from it. I know when a news article has an agenda, because I see it. I see how those people are hurting and I see why they are upset, however this problem won't be solved until both sides of the fence will quiet down and start listening. The media isn't helping solve the problem, they are fueling it. All the press about the police taking such and such actions, because of ____ just fuels the rage in the people. Which leads to more protests and civil unrest.
The massive amounts of opinions being told is a way of obscuring the truth. It is a form of stealthy censorship.
If I understand your post, media in the US is opinion-based rather than fact-based. They are this way because, "sources are owned and therefore controlled by the government or a political party in the US." Further, "articles in the US are all about headlines, because people are always moving or working to get somewhere, so we don't read news unless the headline interests us." Finally, the massive amount of opinions in US press obscure the truth, which is a form of censorship.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. First, your post reads to me as if it based on opinion and anecdote rather than fact. You write in such broad generalities you have rendered a weak argument. Did you really mean to say that all US media are biased? That would not be fact-based.
As evidenced by the two reports which were your homework, the US is ranked 30 out of 197 in Freedom House's Press Freedom scorecard. It is tied with Austria and Micronesia. That is also middle-of-the-pack, when compared with the 62 countries rated "free." Reporters without Borders' report highlights government eavesdropping into Associated Press journalists' phone conversations. They also address a strong crackdown on government whistleblowers who talk with the media.
Does this mean that all media in the US are high quality? No. University studies have shown, for instance, that citizens who get their news solely (or primarily) from Fox are less informed than people who say they don't watch news regularly. This is not the case for viewers of other stations, like, PBS or listen to NPR or read New York Times or Washington Post. These are just a few examples. Try ProPublica.org, or Vox.com, as examples of quality news start-ups. I haven't read the Post Dispatch in decades, but it used to be a great paper.
We will talk about ownership and political party influences later in class. For now, let's focus on government power over the press. In a fact-based way.