Module 5
I have often heard individuals argue over the question, is there really such a thing as free press? Are we really capable of sharing unbiased, politically neutral opinions or are they just that, simply opinions? McChesney (2002) answers a few of these questions by exploring the background and role of professional journalism in their academic slides titled: Into the Buzz Saw: Leading journalists expose the myth of free press. These slides take a well-rounded approach to exploring this subject leading with a brief history of journalism and the term free press. I was drawn to the 18th century approach of political neutrality in journalism and surprised to read that they assumed that “if the government could outlaw or circumscribe newspapers, it effectively eliminate the ability of opposition parties or movements to mobilize popular support.” (McChesney, 2002, pg. 3). I am curious do you think that this was an ethical approach? I would argue that no, it is not; I think that this goes against everything that we hold dear as Americans. That is not free speech.
Additionally, this article brought to light the three biases of professional journalism. These are: to remove the controversy connected with the selection of stories, there had to be a news hook or news peg to justify a news story, smuggles in values conducive to the commercial aims of the owners and advertisers as well as political aims of the owning class. (McChesney, 2002, pg. 7-9). This owning class more often than not consists of large, unethical corporations who spend billions of dollars to have power over what we see in the media. In the pdf summary Democracy & the News, Robert McChesney concedes that “the sad truth is that the closer a story gets to corporate power and corporate domain of our society, the less reliable the news media are.” (McChesney, 2002, pg. 375). In other words, McChesney believes that the news media we view today has been infiltrated by those who are corrupt and do not have our best interests as a society at heart. What is more important, is how our youth are being swayed by these unreliable media messages and the effects that they will have on our future. Were you aware of these biases prior to reading this article? I felt that, intrinsically, I was aware of the last bias, but the other two escaped my notice. Since I was a teenager, I have avoided following many mainstream news sources for this very reason. I have always felt that there was something off about the stories, and now I know why. Do you find yourself being more distrustful of the journalistic news stories after viewing this pdf?
I always assumed that children, up until they reached puberty, could be swayed by advertisements without critiquing them. I was surprised then to read in chapter 10: Consumption and Materialism of our class textbook, Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture, that “research indicates that children under six may be critical of ads, and by the age of eight nearly all children are skeptical of advertisers’ claims.” (Sternheimer, 2013, pg. 256). My mind was blown over here! Yet, when I thought about it, this makes complete sense. As Sternheimer goes on to describe, children these days are so exposed to various forms of media, that it only makes sense that they would be able to apply the lessons that they learn in the world around them, particularly critical thinking skills, to the messages they view on the media. It is because of our fears that we are so quick to write children off as being completely able to be mindlessly swayed by media advertisements. As a parent I can relate to this. It is frightening to think that an institution may have such a direct effect on your child. Especially one that is being overrun by corporations and billionaires who most likely do not have your child’s best interest at heart.
I was saddened, but not entirely shocked when I read the statistics provided in the article Who gets to speak on cable news?. Growing up, my parents watched both local and national news channels at dinner almost every night. While I did not know it at the time, I did that the news anchors, as well as the majority of guest speakers featured were predominantly white. This is still a problem today, as FAIR discovered in their five week observation experiment that “eighty four percent of guests were white (848).” There was great variance among each individual channel, but it seemed as I combed through the data that featuring white males over other races and genders was the overarching trend. I found this to be the case when I completed my own assessment of the news channels for assignment 6 of module 5. Admittedly, I was a little shocked to see that the channel frequently featured an african american FEMALE news anchor. Especially after viewing the GMMP information provided in the Who Makes the News video clip where they stated that although 51% of the world’s population is female only 24% of news anchors are female. (GMMP, 2015). However, this news anchor’s stories were always introduced by a white male, or verified by a white male as though what she had to say was only important once it was acknowledged by her white male counterpart. Which frankly made me irritated and reiterated why I do not personally watch mainstream news channels. I believe that they like to pretend that diversity exists on these channels because they feature women and individuals of different ethnicity’s, when in reality these people end up falling into the “smurfette” principle. While these problems do exist in media, it is also the media that can be used to educate young people that these societal problems still very much reside in plain view.
After reading chapter 11: Beyond Popular Culture, I believe that Karen Sternheimer would agree with my point of view. Sternheimer argues that “pop culture matters; media analysis is a great tool for exposing the complexities of issues like violence, gender, sexuality, racism, and homophobia.” (Sternheimer, 2013, pg. 283). To me, this paragraph alone answers the question that I have been silently asking myself and answering for every module completed, “why does media education matter?” What is more important, this chapter showcases the ways in which t1he media may be used to give light to the aforementioned issues. Sternheimer asserts that “ we should engage in more media analysis,” as a society, instead of simply acknowledging that the issues exist. By becoming media literate, through the implementation of media education in the classroom, American students may use the tools that they engage with on a daily basis, such as web 2.0, to break down the messages given to them and analyze the content for what it really is. It is my hope, that through teacher facilitated media education activities, we may teach even the youngest members of society to see through the tactics that media organizations use to lure their audience in and grab their attention. One such tactic, the one that is most used in the news in my opinion, is fear. In, The News Bias: Distorting reality and feeding fears, Radford points out that “the media profit from fear mongering through sensationalized headlines.” (Radford, 2003, pg. 3). I see this every day on my Facebook feed. Which means that the generation that is younger than mine also sees it. FAIR.org tells us that we may detect media bias by watching our for this type of “loaded language.” (Fair.org, 2016). Do you often see these tactics being used in social media by news networks and journalists to increase engagement or sway their audience?
