Firstly, one quote from the chapter is "the media control the flow of information to the public, which decides who its politicians will be." With this in mind, if a new national daily newspaper was introduced which was funded by the Federal Government as well as having a government-appointed board, would it not be safe to assume readers could be entitled to question the content of the newspaper? Would the paper still hold a bias towards certain views?
I understand this is just a hypothetical situation, but I think it is reasonable to question the intention of the paper prior to deciding if it should be produced for circulation.
Secondly, given taxes will be increased if this newspaper is supported, does that not add to the possibility of bias stories? Federal government money (ultimately at taxpayer's expense), with a federal government appointed board - perhaps I'm a bit of a skeptic, but I think the stories published, or at least the angle of the stories published, would still favour a certain political party/view.
At the end of the day, it's all about business, and business means money. Personally, I just prefer to read a story based on fact and truth - i'm not interested in the politics of it all. Just write an unbiased story, how hard could that possibly be?! I wouldn't support the paper - petrol prices and taxes are high enough.
2. To me the apology appeared somewhat sarcastic, but I enjoyed it! It seems as though he is apologising for expressing an opinion, and why should he have to? When we are all out with friends, or sitting around the dinner table, we share our ideas and opinions. Rarely is it the case of all parties agreeing with each other, but it's a discussion about what each of us thinks. No one later apologises for having their say or voicing their opinion. So why should printers/journalists?
If we think hard enough, society would probably be without the hours of conversation and discussion if it weren't for reporters/journalists' articles. If we have a differing opinion to that of the article we have just read, would the journalist/reporter apologise to us for not writing our opinion? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether it be written or spoken, and I don't think anyone has the right to oppose the opinion of someone else. As Franklin said
"That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed."
The above quote epitomises my argument - we can all have our own say, but we won't all agree with it.
3. I believe journalists should be given independence to write their story without interference. If the journalist is reporting a factual article, written on investigative research, who has the right to interfere with the article? If you look at it from the other angle, would an editor/editorial department put their name to something which has been interfered with, and in doing so potentially discredit themselves?
4. I do not think the internet, web and online news will cause trouble for these countries. As is stated in the chapter "blocked sites include overseas Chinese-language news websites....and most news sites originating in Taiwan and Hong Kong." From this quote it appears much of the problematic websites are in fact originating in these countries anyway. The world is becoming such a technological place, people are more open to different perspectives and different views, and we also have more say and freedom in our life. If people from China, Vietnam and North Korea have a problem with the content of alternative media formats, then don't access that media format.
It is the way the content is interpreted and used which is the problem, not the media format. For example, the Melbourne teens who were in a suicide pact apparently found out from a website how to correctly tie the rope/what knots to use etc etc. Now I personally don't access those sites anyway, but I know they exist. So instead of looking at the actual media format, I think the most important point to consider is simply the content of the media.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is an extension of my response in question 2 above; opinions. So while this is not directly related to the chapter's topic, the issue of opinions sparked my interested after reading Franklin's apology.
I understand most journalists have a specific area they report on - crime reporting, political reporting, sport reporting etc. If the journalists are simply reporting facts of a case or a sporting match, their opinion can't influence the story too much.
However, other journalists have an opinion column in the newspaper or a blog on the web.
Journalists such as Mike Gibson, Peter Fitzsimmons, Miranda Kerr etc. They all have their own opinion columns but not all audiences will agree with their point of view.
But is there really a problem with that? Why can't journalists simply express their opinion without being scruitinsed for doing so? One particular person, author Germaine Greer, certainly comes to mind in this respect.
While I don't agree with everything Greer says, she is still entitled to have her own opinion. The only difference is her opinion is published for the world to talk about. Our opinions are simply discussed around the dinner table, in the classroom or with a bunch of friends.
I enjoy reading journalists' opinion pieces because it gives me the chance to see an issue from another perspective.
And while I might not agree with their opinion, it generates thought and perhaps some indepth discussion - that's not a bad thing at all.
The article on the link below is a story written by Greer on the death of Steve Irwin. Greer believes the animal world finally took its revenge on Irwin, who distressed animals everytime they were put near the camera, according to Greer.
I don't agree with this article, but I can also understand how Greer might come to the conclusions she has.
But again, it's her opinion and she's entitled to it.
Murdoch should start a newspaper publishing only opinion columns - interesting!
Link
No comments:
Post a Comment