Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Media responsibility

I know, it's an oxymoron, usually.

I was struck by something this morning. SeeEnEn has a blurb that says "More Americans get their news from CNN than from any other source."

Given that the Average American is busy working five months out of the year to support the rest of the population, and doesn't have time for their own personal daily news research, shouldn't the responsibility of absolutely unbiased and fair reporting rest squarely on their shoulders?

Isn't that what is meant by journalistic integrity?

If people trust that you are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then you get the level of trust and respect that Pyle and Cronkite enjoyed. If people knew that they were getting the "straight dope" from you, then milblogs, and blogs in general, wouldn't exist, at least not in the way they currently do.

We are here because increasingly, people don't trust mass media. They are seeing that it is simply a commercial venture, and one which thinly veils overwhelming support for anything which will generate revenue. For example they broadcast on the war, but focus on death, sensationalism, and tales of woe and failure. This in turn keeps their ratings up, especially among people opposed to the war, and ratings attract sponsors. Sponsors equal money.
Therefore, the driving force behind CNN and every other major news outlet isn't "truth," it's cash. Whoever has the cash, makes the truth. No news organization is going to kill the golden goose, and most will go so far as to support the aims and goals of their sponsors.

So there you have it. Why should people believe what they read on a small blog, vs. what the mainstream media presents? Simple: most bloggers aren't motivated by money,they still seek (and speak) the truth.

At least, I do.


No comments: