For every unappealing event or person one must look for the sliver of silver. Or so the saying goes. It is the same with American politics in its present state and the presence of an unusual superego (the ego part is a must to be in any limelight for anyone) in the form of the Donald.
With the airwaves awash in negativity about all that he says and does it is also IMHO exposing a chink in the media's armor. That of unbiased reporting. Some journalists have gone as far as to say that this time is an exception.
But in fact that is not so. I have been observing the American media more closely than any other given I have the desire to be "informed" and it provides one point of view that shapes my own opinion. It seems that depending on the vested interests of the broadcaster the news or talk shows tends to conform to a predetermined ideology or designed to merely confuse the viewer or reader to the point of feeling irrelevant.
Take the word media for instance. It is the Latin derivative to describe the plural of medium, an agency which is supposed to inform. The same media came up with obfuscation and nonsense when they started calling their broadcasts multi-media. If it is already a plural why add the multi prefix?
Going back to what this so called media is involved in is to find some of them now questioning if they have indeed been true to some sort of journo Rhinocratic oath (like the medical doctors take before picking up a scalpel). In wake of lambasting Trump they are realizing they are returning the favor in some way. But is that right?
If the media's job is to inform it is implied it will be unbiased and comprehensive. But for ratings and to appease some boss in some ivory tower that is being disregarded. To be that impartial jury is to be above the bloggers, the talking heads and the politically motivated. They have their jobs - the media has its too.
It is like the chef in an Indian restaurant - how spicy will you like your Chicken Tikka Masala? 'Medium' is my usual answer.
With the airwaves awash in negativity about all that he says and does it is also IMHO exposing a chink in the media's armor. That of unbiased reporting. Some journalists have gone as far as to say that this time is an exception.
But in fact that is not so. I have been observing the American media more closely than any other given I have the desire to be "informed" and it provides one point of view that shapes my own opinion. It seems that depending on the vested interests of the broadcaster the news or talk shows tends to conform to a predetermined ideology or designed to merely confuse the viewer or reader to the point of feeling irrelevant.
Take the word media for instance. It is the Latin derivative to describe the plural of medium, an agency which is supposed to inform. The same media came up with obfuscation and nonsense when they started calling their broadcasts multi-media. If it is already a plural why add the multi prefix?
Going back to what this so called media is involved in is to find some of them now questioning if they have indeed been true to some sort of journo Rhinocratic oath (like the medical doctors take before picking up a scalpel). In wake of lambasting Trump they are realizing they are returning the favor in some way. But is that right?
If the media's job is to inform it is implied it will be unbiased and comprehensive. But for ratings and to appease some boss in some ivory tower that is being disregarded. To be that impartial jury is to be above the bloggers, the talking heads and the politically motivated. They have their jobs - the media has its too.
It is like the chef in an Indian restaurant - how spicy will you like your Chicken Tikka Masala? 'Medium' is my usual answer.
Comments
Post a Comment