The fact of the matter is that traditional news enterprises are on the wane. This is perhaps most obvious in print media, which is currently dying a slow and painful death as it struggles to squeeze an ever greater amount of internet-ready ‘content’ from an ever smaller number of qualified, experienced journalists. However, the decline in traditional news productions isn’t just limited to print; observe how CNN struggles to hold onto a dwindling viewership by running increasingly sensational stories of little journalistic merit. A prime example would be the obsessive, lurid coverage over the missing MH370 Malaysian Airline plane. CNN’s wild theories- I’m sure there was at least one person who wondered on air whether the incident was the work of aliens- may have made great fodder for the Daily Show, but I found it disheartening that a major international news organisation with such considerable resources was stooping to National Enquirer level reporting.
Often, the most cited factor in the decline of traditional news outlets is trust. Observe how people on both the left and the right side of the political spectrum both talk derisively of the ‘Mainstream Media’, as though established news organisations were merely a part of some collective conspiracy to try and hoodwink a gullible public. This cynicism has had a polarising effects, as more and more people increasingly turn to other outlets for their information; both online (in the explosion of semi-reputable news blogs) and on TV. Generally speaking, younger people and those on the left will get their news from Jon Stewart on the aforementioned Daily Show (indeed, to such an extent that polls have repeatedly named Stewart the most trusted name in news, a label he himself roundly rejects). Older viewers and those on the right turn to Fox News, whose coverage pledges to be “Fair and Balanced”- I’d like to emphasise the use of quotation marks on that slogan. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m wary of a false equivalency here- the satirical Daily Show is based on comedy (and personally, I think it’s fantastic), whilst Fox is often an echo chamber for the worst and most corrosive of bigotries. And yet, the consistent popularity of these two ‘alternative’ news sources shows a collective disillusion with the state of the MSM.
Anyway, here’s my two cents. It all comes down to this: all truth is subjective. There is no such thing as ‘objective truth’, and this is where a lot of disillusionment with news media comes into play. Fox News is one such example; they remain popular and influential because they tell their audience the version of the truth that their audience wants to hear. The same goes for many or most of the online blogs and new news organisations; their independence appeals to us because we think it guarantees a greater freedom from bias, whereas in fact there is no freedom from bias. I don’t think it matters whether a story is reported by a major news organisation or a guy running out of his basement; each assertion needs to be assessed and taken on merit. There is nothing wrong with questioning who is telling you the news- indeed, it’s our responsibility as an informed public. The danger is when we become so cynical that we ignore all established reporting entirely and flee to sanctuaries where people tell us stories which chime exactly with what we’re thinking ourselves already.
The picture above is a great example of how we lack impartiality. We value our own experiences and sympathy to the familiar above those of the unknown ‘other’. This is often the narrative that is perpetuated by news sources who would proclaim an objective truth which serves to drive a particular narrative. I suppose what I’m trying to get at is that we should interrogate and challenge the information we are told, be wary of sweeping narratives, and not allow our cynicism to blind us to pertinent information where it is made available, even if it appears in an unavoidably subjective package.
No comments:
Post a Comment