Friday, September 30, 2011

He said she said

          Do you ever find yourself helplessly reading all the magazines while in line at the super market?
  
    Drawn in by catch titles like Angelina lost another 15 pounds, thinking how could that woman get any thinner?

    Sadly for me I have a boyfriend who constantly ruins my moment of embracing pop culture by saying things like “Nothing in those magazines is true”.

    Which lead me to think where do most people get there news? And how trusted is there source?

    Turns out most people between the ages of 18-25 consume there news from Comedians like Jon Stewart.

      Although this fact is looked at and exploited as negative information, I say more power to you.

    With six corporations owning all televised media which is where 96 percent of Americans obtain there news there is obvious motive for not only framing news but also leaving a lot out as well.

    These five corporations being Disney owning 16 percent of shares, New Corporation 14 percent, Viacom 18 percent, Time Warner 12 percent, General Electric 13 percent and only 27 percent left to other ownership.

    Meaning that 73 percent of televised media is owned by one of these five corporations all with their own personal agendas in mind.

    So why not receive news from comedians at least they have less incentive to stretch the truth and even more reason to tell it like it is.

    A great example of this would be the show crossfire a once fairly popular news show whose premise was to state the news in a debate like stance.

    After they interviewed comedian Ron Stewart on their show it seized to exist at all.

    However there was a lot of validity that occurred during the interview which lead to this off air decision to cut the show.

    During the interview the host’s of the show directed Jon Stewart with an attacking stance, asking him to justify himself for not asking more hard hitting questions while interviewing John Carey.

    Jon Stewart response being that he is not a trusted new site who is supposed to let the people know what is going on in the world; his responsibility is to simply make people laugh.

    Although when looking even further into the interview other truths divulge the reasoning behind crossfire’s slanderous attacks at Jon for his questions was due to the fact that he was not asking the same questions every news crew has been asking.

    The reasoning behind his decision not to ask this repetitive question was due to the fact that the answer had already been proven that he was in Cambodia.

    So instead of speaking on this stirring controversy he instead made a point that it no longer was an issue because it had been proven.

     This is not the only time in Media that news has stretched out an issue or even created one just for viewer’s entertainment losing as Jon Stewart stated integrity among viewers.

    Many do not challenge the facts being given to us because we have been conditioned to think that our news sources are trusted advisers on what is going on in the world.

    However there is clearly many opportunities if not actual corruption occurring in our news sources with obvious loyalties and main purpose of entertainment there is little facts left in our news.

    So congratulations to the main percentage of 18-24 year olds although being looked down upon for your selection of news source it appears that yours are the most reliable.

3 comments:

  1. Good topic and quite understandable.

    And a good point about media ownership and how few corporate giants control what people see on TV.

    On the downside, there are some serious issues in this with basic sentence structure and even spelling.

    I am getting that 'John Carey' is referring to the 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry?

    There is an axiom in the news business that goes like this: Say whatever you want about me, but spell my name right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brave choice, taking statistics generally viewed as negative and putting a positive spin on them.

    If this column had been edited to fix the sentence, spelling, and factual mistakes, it would have been really interesting and compelling. As it was, it made an excellent conversation starter.

    Unfortunately, the errors (peoples names, clunky grammatical mistakes, etc) made it hard to see the author as credible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the above two comments. Definitely needs some editing. I really enjoyed the article, except the journalist in me kept getting distracted by the errors.

    Other than the editing, fascinating article.

    ReplyDelete