Media Coverage
Recently I’ve become even more skeptical of the medias reporting, and I dont just mean CNN, or MSNBC or Fox (wait, they arent REALLY a news company, are they Mr. President?). Its all of them.
I saw a report on Fox about a man in Libya who “sacrificed everything” for his familys freedom. (OK, I’ll bite and hold on a bit longer before I click to another channel.) This man in Libya, tired of repression and a dictatorial regime, gave his life for just the chance, nay, the DREAM that his family could enjoy a better life. Such a noble presentation, makes you want to root for the Libyan people and their dreams of a new day. What did this guy do, you may ask? He loaded his car with explosives and drove into a government compound, blowing up himself and the Government representatives there. WTF? Didnt we used to call someone who did that a suicide bomber? The same guy doing the same thing in Iraq would have gotten ZERO coverage, you only would have heard of how his cowardly attack affected the lives of Americans and their families. Shouldnt the same action get the same coverage?
I simply cant WATCH the news anymore, now I have to filter the “news” based on what is opinion, what is political, and what covers only PART of the story. How the heck are my kids supposed to understand what is going on in the world when all they get is one sided, opinionated reporting?
When Russia “invaded” Georgia a few years ago, the news didnt report that S. Ossetia had REQUESTED Russian support, that Georgia had INVADED S. Ossetia, or that the Ossetians were “Valiantly fighting for their independence”. All you heard about was the tension caused by Russia. The real facts, if reported, were that S. Ossetia had declared its own independence from Georgia in 1992, but had only been recognized as a separate nation by a few other countries. S. Ossetia requested Russian troops to come into their country (which the Russians did) and that this action caused Georgia to claim it had been “Invaded”. If you still considered S. Ossetia part of Georgia (which Georgia did) then the Georgians are right.
Point is, the days of information are quickly changing into the age of opinions and half-truths. I dont like it. I dont care if it isnt sensational, I’d rather have factual and boring than TMZ any day.
April 13, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Consider the following statements:
Viewpoint 1: A freedom-hating terrorist killed five of America’s best young men by blowing himself up at the checkpoint.
Viewpoint 2: A man detonated an explosive device at the checkpoint. He died along with five others.
Viewpoint 3: The guerrilla tactics of the young father proved to the invaders how dedicated we are to the sovereignty and freedom of our nation.
News and history will always be colored with opinion. If reporters actually spoke in facts, the un-opinionated information would appall us with how insensitive it is to society and country (see viewpoint 2). Not even one society and country, but EVERY society and country. To answer “why” an event is, something other than unbiased fact must be reported.
If news tries to tell “why”, there will be assumptions made as to motivations, intent, and desire. Motivations, intent, and desire are intangible and in constant flux. They can be inferred, projected, and extrapolated; but those methods do not provide fact, only likelihood. If events are to be given any context other than answering “what”, there will always be the application of the author’s opinion into the facts.