one thing that i constantly perplexed by is how journalists add, or don't add their personal influence. it's definitely been a struggle for me at times this semester, and i am still working on strengthening that aspect of my writing. i suppose every journalist may at one point or another just want his or her own column but i guess thats wishful thinking huh?
anyways, it blows me away when it's apparent. particularly like fox news and the presidential election. like, hello, now is not the time to fcuk around! i also find it interesting how an entire news network, particularly an enormous one like Fox, can be so biased. as the NYTimes article says; "Over many months, Fox lulled its conservative base with agitprop: that President Obama was a clear failure, that a majority of Americans saw Mr. Romney as a good alternative in hard times, and that polls showing otherwise were politically motivated and not to be believed."
the article continues: "But on Tuesday night, the people in charge of Fox News were confronted with a stark choice after it became clear that Mr. Romney had fallen short: was Fox, first and foremost, a place for advocacy or a place for news?
In this moment, at least, Fox chose news."
So obviously, when it comes down to it, Fox is still a news station. I worry about that though - it seems like the precedent is slowly being lowered and more and more outlets are filtering or amending their news so that when they report it, it inevitably sways the consumer.
No comments:
Post a Comment