To start, I’ll first define the question in a way I understood it. Mass media is making up and modifying stories. Recent events mean happenings that have just occurred or is still occurring at this point of time and are reported from now back to a few years ago. I totally agree with the statement that mass media do not report news but make them.
Mass media includes television channels, radio station, newspaper, internet and even reporters. It plays an undeniable role in our daily life by broadcasting news and events that happens around the world to us. Millions of people depend on them for information, causing the influence of mass media becoming so huge that it now wields high powers over the way people think, behave and act on various events that happened around the globe. It affects the society mentally and physically, directly and indirectly. However, in these days, their role has slowly changed from reporting stories to making stories. Since increase profit is their primary goal, they modify and make-up news. It’s like putting the news in cute packages before putting up for sale. I will illustrate my points with some articles from recent events.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.asp
Based on the article above, CNN’s chief news executive Eason Jordan admitted that for the past decades the network has systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were covered up in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau. It is clearly shown that they do not report the truth which is unfavourable to them as it will lead to a loss in income. This implies that mass media’s motive of reporting news is not to report the truth but making profits.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vx0.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Inaccurate_media_reports
My point is also shown in another article which is about the mass killings in Virginia University in the United States last Monday. If the reporter did not include the number 33 in the headlines, will your reaction be the same when u read it? The number served as a purpose to portray a significant number of people who became the victim in that incident. The decision to air the videos and pictures by the killer is a bad one as the media should not publicize the wrong of the killer and indirectly make him famous but educate the society. The mass media make news without much consideration about the feelings of the family members but how to make their news sell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Inaccurate_media_reports
Besides that, in the incident on 16April which is the Virginia Tech massacre. Mass media in different country created their own killer’s identity to attract public’s attention and sell first hand news in order to make money. CNN broadcast the images, which it said provided a "powerful insight into the mind of a killer". Let me illustrate my point with an n example: In a media report, notably Chicago Sun-Times journalist Michael Sneed among others, have wrongly identified a Chinese American and a Chinese national as the suspected shooter. The news though only at guessing state was published even before the gunman was officially disclosed by Virginia Tech authorities.
Though it is undeniable that this probably is not true for all cases as there are some newspaper that are published based truly on facts and do not make-up their own news.
In conclusion, I personally agreed with the statement that mass media create their own story rather than reporting the truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that the media nowadays 'make' the news. To be exact, they obtain facts and either add in their own opinions and biased views or twist the facts a little to make the articles more interesting.
What makes them do that? I feel that it is the competition between the various broadcasting stations that influenced them to 'make' news in order to gain more viewers.
However, 'making' news can become a backlash too if it is carried out long-term. If too many false information are reported, the station will lose viewers' trust.
While it is undeniable that the media's actual motive is the profits, could it have faked up stories because it was manipulated to do so?
For example, what if a superior organisation, for example, the government is actually pulling the strings behind the content of the media to better its image to the public. Bearing in mind that reports or news on the government's atrocities will definitely increase the number of reader and more so, the profit earned.
In that case instead of saying that the media is "fluffing" up stories, why not say that the media is "selective over articles to be published"? Or perhaps, some stories are best not shared?
I dare not say that the role of the media in all countries have changed (ie to 'make' rather than report news). However, I feel that we should consider both sides of the coin because this is a rather outrageous claim to make.
As a follow up, consider
(1) the views of 'have u done ur gp?'
(2) the kinds of corporation that take publishing of truth seriously & those that do not. Examine theire reasons for doing so. See if you can link these reasons to the view offered by "u done ur gp?"
Also, use formal language in your blog entry.
mstan
Post a Comment