The first poster sets the tone of the discussion. So go ahead and post something will ya'!
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I have a goal to be the first person to post every Friday! Ha ha! I have been thinking about how violence is covered in the media. There was a lot of talk about this after the Virginia Tech shooting. How should the media expose these kind of events? Should the public have access to this handbook of torture that was found in Iraq? Part of me feels that if people are suffering to this degree, we should not hide the reality of it and let the world know. Another part of me is uneasy about it. There you go...tell me what you guys think.
My thoughts are tiered on this matter. Sometimes I think it is good and well to inform the public. Sometimes I think it is a detriment to ongoing initiatives to inform the public. Sometimes I think things are released to the public for selfish reasons such as personal gain related to politics, etc. Sometimes I think it is a mixture of selfishness and pride, while other times I think it is a matter of duty to inform the public.
Mostly I would say that discernment and prudence are key factors in how the media should respond if they should respond at all. I think that our fallen nature has allowed selfishness to play a key role in our decision-making. This selfish-mode-of-thinking can be scene in this scenario: A news reporter grabs a controversial story and submits it to his boss, that boss submits it to his superior and so on and so forth until it reaches the top (as it is a controversial story in which a risk will be taken if it is aired and people's reputati0on hang in the balance). The reporter thinks he is in for something good if this story pans out the way it should. The boss thinks he is in for something better as he sent the reporter. The superior thinks he is in for some recognition as he promoted the boss who hired the reporter, etc., etc. all the way to the top where he thinks if the story is aired and it is true, the station he is head over will have the top ratings and all of America will be tuned into their station, of which he is president and one day, his name and bust will line the hallway of great CEO's for that company. Furthermore, the stock in the company will go up, the shareholder's profits will increase and the board will be pleased with him so his job is secure for a little while longer.
No where in that scenario is there regard for the people who's reputations will be destroyed or whatever the issue may be. I am not saying this happens all the time, but I would dare say that it is the status quo.
I believe that pure motives have long since been left on the sideline and selfish gain has has taken the field when it comes to reporting.
I remember my grandparents saying that when they were younger you could listen to the news. Now all you get is someones opinion... as if we can't think for ourselves.
"I believe that pure motives have long since been left on the sideline and selfish gain has has taken the field when it comes to reporting.
I remember my grandparents saying that when they were younger you could listen to the news. Now all you get is someones opinion... as if we can't think for ourselves."
This is so true. I took one broadcasting class in college where I learned that true reporting is just telling the facts, not what you (the reporter) thinks of the situation. I remember during the last election it was so obvious that the reporters on one station were in favor of one canidate. I think right now, FOX news does the best with reporting facts, not thoughts. I totally agree with your views. My fear with reporters giving so many details about violence, is that it will give the wrong people ideas. My fear with them not sharing the details, is that the suffering of innocent people will continue. I know that this is part of living in fallen world. I just pray that people will be responsible with the information they hear. What do you ( and other readers ) think of show s such as Nancy Grace? Reporters who basically try to solve a crime on national tv?
I think we're a society now that has become desensitized more to violence than anything else.
Personally, I think everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they want to view something. I've turned the TV from the news on many occasions b/c I'm just tired to hear of who's getting shot, stabbed, or beaten. Let the news air whatever the heck they want for whatever purpose they want - I will freely use the ON/OFF button.
What do you ( and other readers ) think of show s such as Nancy Grace? Reporters who basically try to solve a crime on national tv?
I have never seen the show of which you are speaking, so I really can't comment on it. I can, however, comment on the idea of solving crimes on tv. I think that it is better left to law enforcement. There is too much of a temptation to draw in ratings than to be true to the facts.
5 comments:
I have a goal to be the first person to post every Friday! Ha ha! I have been thinking about how violence is covered in the media. There was a lot of talk about this after the Virginia Tech shooting. How should the media expose these kind of events? Should the public have access to this handbook of torture that was found in Iraq? Part of me feels that if people are suffering to this degree, we should not hide the reality of it and let the world know. Another part of me is uneasy about it.
There you go...tell me what you guys think.
Kellye,
My thoughts are tiered on this matter. Sometimes I think it is good and well to inform the public. Sometimes I think it is a detriment to ongoing initiatives to inform the public. Sometimes I think things are released to the public for selfish reasons such as personal gain related to politics, etc. Sometimes I think it is a mixture of selfishness and pride, while other times I think it is a matter of duty to inform the public.
Mostly I would say that discernment and prudence are key factors in how the media should respond if they should respond at all. I think that our fallen nature has allowed selfishness to play a key role in our decision-making. This selfish-mode-of-thinking can be scene in this scenario: A news reporter grabs a controversial story and submits it to his boss, that boss submits it to his superior and so on and so forth until it reaches the top (as it is a controversial story in which a risk will be taken if it is aired and people's reputati0on hang in the balance). The reporter thinks he is in for something good if this story pans out the way it should. The boss thinks he is in for something better as he sent the reporter. The superior thinks he is in for some recognition as he promoted the boss who hired the reporter, etc., etc. all the way to the top where he thinks if the story is aired and it is true, the station he is head over will have the top ratings and all of America will be tuned into their station, of which he is president and one day, his name and bust will line the hallway of great CEO's for that company. Furthermore, the stock in the company will go up, the shareholder's profits will increase and the board will be pleased with him so his job is secure for a little while longer.
No where in that scenario is there regard for the people who's reputations will be destroyed or whatever the issue may be. I am not saying this happens all the time, but I would dare say that it is the status quo.
I believe that pure motives have long since been left on the sideline and selfish gain has has taken the field when it comes to reporting.
I remember my grandparents saying that when they were younger you could listen to the news. Now all you get is someones opinion... as if we can't think for ourselves.
j razz
"I believe that pure motives have long since been left on the sideline and selfish gain has has taken the field when it comes to reporting.
I remember my grandparents saying that when they were younger you could listen to the news. Now all you get is someones opinion... as if we can't think for ourselves."
This is so true. I took one broadcasting class in college where I learned that true reporting is just telling the facts, not what you (the reporter) thinks of the situation. I remember during the last election it was so obvious that the reporters on one station were in favor of one canidate. I think right now, FOX news does the best with reporting facts, not thoughts. I totally agree with your views. My fear with reporters giving so many details about violence, is that it will give the wrong people ideas. My fear with them not sharing the details, is that the suffering of innocent people will continue. I know that this is part of living in fallen world. I just pray that people will be responsible with the information they hear. What do you ( and other readers ) think of show s such as Nancy Grace? Reporters who basically try to solve a crime on national tv?
I think we're a society now that has become desensitized more to violence than anything else.
Personally, I think everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they want to view something. I've turned the TV from the news on many occasions b/c I'm just tired to hear of who's getting shot, stabbed, or beaten. Let the news air whatever the heck they want for whatever purpose they want - I will freely use the ON/OFF button.
What do you ( and other readers ) think of show s such as Nancy Grace? Reporters who basically try to solve a crime on national tv?
I have never seen the show of which you are speaking, so I really can't comment on it. I can, however, comment on the idea of solving crimes on tv. I think that it is better left to law enforcement. There is too much of a temptation to draw in ratings than to be true to the facts.
j razz
Post a Comment