It is AMAZING how MEDIA COVERAGE on political matters tend to FALL by the wayside once "DANGER" is no longer imminent but "OUT OF SIGHT OUR OF MIND DOESNT ALWAYS WORK"
In Boxing/Martial Arts,
fighters tend to watch hours of tape of their opponents in preparation for upcoming fights. It is often interesting to fighters get knocked out from a blow that just wasn't expected because it is a primary weapon in their challengers arsenal.
If I am known for a devastating uppercut that doesn't not mean "DONT WATCH OUT FOR THE HOOK!"
THE HOOK COULD BE THE KNOCKOUT BLOW!!!
How does this relate to MEDIA??
Let's look at the issues in Syria!
We had immense coverage on Syria when we were contemplating a strike against Syria. Media had constant coverage, analysts and reports from DC to Syria.
Although the strikes on Syria are no longer imminent that does not mean coverage should diminish.
From our Twitters,
we realize there are numerous talks on issues in Syria and nuclear warfare although the headlines are more concerned with Miley Cyrus.
Soft news vs. Hard News.
The Assad regime has been a huge impact and been a thorn for the U.S. and should never be taken lightly.
For coverage to almost completely go by the wayside almost gives the assumption that we are no longer concerned as a nation about pending threat.
Even in reference to the UN delegations. We provide coverage and highlight key points from around the world but don't really offer the analysis or in-depth details of the various occurences.
All I am saying is,
MEDIA never really seems to dive deep into an issue or cover an issue until something big happens.
I believe we have a right to stay informed and it is medias job to gain information.
We should never feel that nothing is going on and then be shocked when an attack happens.
9/11 was a BIG issue of that.
There was so much conspiracy that media didn't cover or release until after the incident happened.
Preparation is the key to success and we have a right to know.
I ask again!!!
Is Mass Media LOW-BLOWING the people or doing a KNOCKOUT job???
In my opinion, it should be seen as a low blow to the people as we are only receiving the information that the media deems to be appropriate. While this does fall directly in line with the media's gatekeeping function, I tend to believe that what they deem "appropriate" has more to do with viewer ratings and turnout than the relevance that the issue could (or should) have on the viewers life.
ReplyDeleteIf we cherry pick only stories that have shock value to them, be it hard news or soft news, then "we the people" never get the background information that is so critical to making informed, intelligent evaluations. If we, as a democratic society, are to uphold our constitution, then we require information with which to select the best individual to represent us in government. By focusing on stories if and only if they create some sort of shock to our system, the media is boosting their profits while incapacitating the public to make informed decisions. Well, maybe not incapacitating, but certainly making it more difficult for the average citizen to understand the background information to the stories presented. For this reason, I would label it a "low blow", albeit an extremely expected one given that media corporations are more responsible to stockholders than they are to some imaginary ethics police squad.
Great post your comparison of media coverage to boxing is fascinating never really looked at it from that view point. Just like in our class discussion post the media reports what they want us to hear and it appeals to the masses. With the Syria issue its not surprising that news coverage on it has diminished since it does seem like the government goal was accomplished. In media its always about the next bigger and better story of the week and this week its Obamacare and the threat of a government shutdown. The media is always about the next story next week its going to be something different.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely true and it is so only because the media will cover what people want to hear. If the majority of the American people think that the budget issues are more important than Syria naturally the media will cover the budget issues. Your assessment that the media doesn't truly dive deep into an issue is absolutely certain. Even when they cover issues that are important to voters they always skim the surface because most folks don't like to get into the issues too deeply. Remember that at then end of the day the majority of these corporations are in it to make money. If speaking about a certain national issue will make them money for a few days, then they will do it. It's unfortunate but it's the way the world works.
ReplyDeleteYou make some valid points. I agree that the media does not seem to go deep into an issue until a major event happens. Another example that could be used is gun control. Gun control seems like somewhat of a dormant issue until an event such as Sandy Hook or Aurora occurs, than there is a huge uproar about it and mental health. The Media focuses on issus that they feel the public wants talked about at that current time. If the media would dive deeper in to the issue than the public would in return get a deeper unterstanding. America is an inquisitive nation that never quite gets their question answered.
ReplyDelete