Media censorship, I believe that when most people think of media censorship, they think of masked profanity or edited content. However, this is not always the case. I came to garner interest over media censorship during the 2008 presidential election. Regardless of whom I supported, I came to find that the media censored issues in a very alarming way. It’s impossible to be completely objective, but the amount of sheer bias was blatant. The media’s primary job is to inform people accurately. This was not seen on either sides of the political spectrum. Conservative or liberal, both sides obviously let their personal opinions override the purpose of their job—to inform.
How did I come up with such a topic? The truth is, I was on youtube way too late last week. I came across a video of Bill O’ Reilly (a noted Fox News TV Host) and the political satirist, Jon Stewart. In the video, Bill O’ Reilly responded to Jon’s criticism of Fox news being bias. In his response, O’ Reilly states his opinion before revealing that Stewart had actually edited the content that was being criticized. Needless to say, the debate on the comments was brutal. I discovered two broad but distinctly different opinions. One side is stating that Jon was just catering to his “liberal” audience while the other side is insisting that Bill O’ Reilly completely missed the point of Jon’s sketch. Was Jon just being facetious about Fox’s bias? Or was Jon just catering to his audience and telling them what he wants them to hear? Or is the message something completely different?
What do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsEuQYwFSg
---Helena Berbano
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find it amazing that the news has taken on such a different meaning. News reporters no longer report what is going on in the world, but rather spin the different news stories into political topics sometimes missing the real meaning of the story entirely. The reporters are now more concerned with their own political views than they are with presenting their viewers the facts. It is important for the viewers to be aware of these tactics and form their own opinions rather than accepting that of the news station that they are watching. I believe it is time to take the politics out of the news. Politics are opinionated and opinions are not necessary when reporting the news, unless however both sides are fairly represented thus not swaying the viewer’s opinion.
ReplyDeleteI believe that news stations are very bias. If you are a conservative, then you watch Fox new stations, and if you are a liberal then you watch ABC news station. I see it in my own household! I think that we as the viewers need to start being aware of watching certain stations report stories. We watch what we want to see and what we want to agree on. We only watch our opposing station to attack, and become angry over the comments. Persuasion over politics needs to be removed from the news. Opinions are not necessary, I agree.
ReplyDeleteI think that while some news stations can be very biased, I believe that Bill O'Reilly was just showing the truth in what he was saying. Jon took what he wanted out of what Fox News was saying to cater towards his audience. He made Fox News look like they were the bad guys, when I think they were just trying to report what was going on. I am not saying that Fox News isn't biased at all, but in this video I think they were just reporting what was happening. I also agree with what
ReplyDeletebabcockl said about how we only watch what we want to here to agree
I'd like to begin by pointing out two things. First, I believe that politicians will always take an opinionated stand. One may think that they may gain more followers if they are more vague in their intentions and points of view, since by doing this, they are hitting both ends of the spectrum. However, they need to create a set of beliefs and stick to them. Otherwise, people may accuse them of being hypocritical. Secondly, I have learned not only by experiencing it first hand but also by learning about it in my Mass Communications and Intro to Communications classes, that television shows will show what they need to show in order to gain viewers and stay on the air. In this case, Jon Stewart has a reputation of being very liberal, so the producers of his show are only showing clips of conservatives that portray them in a negative light. In addition, regardless of which wing I may occupy, I think that Bill O'Reilly was attempting to set the record straight. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was clearly chopping the clips in order to convey its liberal stand. To be fair, both sides were trying to get subtle digs in against the other. However, I honestly believe that Bill O'Reilly, in this case, was simply trying to allow the public to see both sides of the story. If the public can see all the points of view, no matter how radical or extreme, then we can form an educated opinion -- based on what the media tells us, which, as we all know, is not the whole story. But since that is all we have on which to run, then that is how we will have to form our opinions for the time being.
ReplyDeleteI don't think bias in the news is globally, universally bad. It's true, both Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly aren't and don't really even pretend to be objective. And that's okay! They don't have to be. Those shows are valuable and entertaining even as they are. However, to be really informed people would have to watch an objective news program as well as a politicized one, and many people don't. Even if politicized programs "steal" people from objective ones, though, and therefore make people less informed, they also bring people in who otherwise wouldn't watch the news at all, so i believe there's still a net benefit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think there's an inherent difference between the shows that've been mentioned so far, here. Both of them are trying to make a point and convince their audience. But Bill O'Reilly, repeatedly and documentedly, has made arguments that were clearly untrue and in bad faith. Unlike Jon Stewart, O'Reilly isn't joking; he's not a parody, he's not trying to be funny and therefore letting his viewers know that he exaggerates or makes absurdities up for a punchline. He's presenting bile and propaganda and outright lies as if it were fact. Jon Stewart is arguing his own side and making fun of the opposition, but at least he's honest about it, and argues with actual facts.
I agree with babcockl in that people watch the stations that they want to agree with. Bias in the news isn't going to end because it keeps people entertained. If the news channels just said the facts, it would be boring to a majority of the viewers. When the host says their opinions, it makes people think more and they choose whether or not they want to agree with those views. So I think there is definitely a lot of bias in the news but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteMedia censorship… what to say about it? It’s the media’s lies, exaggerations, slanders and opinions. But to agree or disagree, I’m not so sure. On one hand, it is wrong and people get a bias opinion about the news or in this case a bias opinion about the elections, but on the other hand, what is the media there for? Yes, they are there to inform the public, but the channel is also there to make money, get viewers and make entertainment. By starting a full out opinion, they not only get their supporters but also get the non-supporters so they can defend their position. And, they also get the people that find these debates entertaining to watch. This therefore gets more viewers and more viewers get the station more money. And that’s what the station is out for money, so basically they are just doing their job. So, what’s wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteThis week in philosophy, my teacher asked us, why we believe the things we believe? And, the class couldn’t answer, so he therefore told us to never just believe something because a higher authority told us. So, why should people complain about media censorship, the newscasters aren’t forcing us to believe what they are saying. We do that ourselves. But is it fair to the public to have to sort through the opinions? Why should we even have to have stuff censored? Why can’t everything just be the truth? No opinions, no exaggerations or no propaganda.
One reason I can think of is that media censorship is entertaining. Look at the video posted above; it has been viewed 64,247 times. If people hate how it’s censored, why do people watch it so much?
Media censorship is clearly a very popular topic of discussion in our world today. But who really knows how much censoring goes on in the media prior to the audience's viewing of the information. I feel as though many reporters, such as Bill O'Reilly, do not necessarily change the information they are given, but instead exaggerate it to prove a point. The purpose of shows such as that of Bill O'Reilly are to get people riled up about world issues or things happening in the news. If the stories they are given are not very interesting, who is going to watch their show? People in our society expect everything in life to be full of high-packed action like something out of an action movie. This gives reporters the motives to change the story to make it more interesting- the more controversial the issue, the better. News reporters now a days are not out to give the public an honest look at things, but instead are out to win the admiration of supporters and keep their audience happy with juicy and controversial topics.
ReplyDeleteThis post talks about the biased reporting that went on during the recent presidential election. The primary job of reporters and news stations is to honestly portray the facts and information about our nations important issues, especially the facts about the potential president of our country. But at the same time, what supporter of a candidate is going to willingly admit their candidates faults? Everyone always wants the candidate that will be best for them to win, but fails to consider that giving the country honest information will allow them to make a choice that will be best for everyone. It is time something is done to change this vicious cycle of lies and exaggeration brought about by our media and news reporters.
I believe that now a days a lot of people would do anything to make a story out of something. By this i meen, people are willing to add words into other people's mouth to get a story. It would not surprise me if Stewart edited the video to make O’ Reilly bias. Poeple these days should just be simple and straight foward with their comments for thse types of things dont happen anymore.
ReplyDeleteSince media in today’s society is indeed bias, it is able to attract people to watch certain channels over others. Each channel censors what they want and air what they think will get the most people to watch it. It is not so much about the news and what is going on in the world any more, it has come to be about making the media more interesting and entertaining. Some stories are not true anymore and do not portray the full aspect. Not only are some stories edited, but they also tend to be exaggerated on occasion. The truth in stories now also gets stretched and conveniently relate to topics at hand in whatever aspect better suits the discussions.
ReplyDeleteMany people discuss this topic and cannot understand why the media is censored, but the answer is for entertainment. The fact that more people talk about it makes people interested and they watch YouTube videos and make it more popular. The censorship needs to stop however because it is all blatant lies and untruthfulness directed to the public.
I completely agree with this post. (great job) The other day I was at my grandmothers house and I turned on the news and she refused to watch it because of the station it was on. When I asked her why she said it was too republican for her. People dont want to hear straight facts anymore, they just want to hear news reported, catered to their own opinions.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely difficult for media to be unbiased in today's society, especially in the political arena. Whether people are aware of it or not, when they are presenting a case they are very likely to somehow intertwine their personal beliefs and bias. In addition to that, it is far more interesting to listen to an opinion and the supporting argument rather than the plain and simple facts. I personally believe the biased information can be beneficial. Because we live in this country we are able to hear multiple opinions and make our own decision. Citizens are able to hear arguments and certain things they should believe; they should take those things they hear and relate them to the values in their own life.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe the biased media can be very beneficial, it can also be quite detremental to the ignorant citizen. Before "choosing a side" the citizen should listen and read about both or all sides. Making a decision after hearing multiple opinions is an invaluable skill in today's world. I would personally encourage people, especially the impressionable students, to watch different news stations and read different newspapers. The media is not always false but many times it leaves out certain points to bolster an opposing view.
Before making any remarks about this clip, one must first understand that Jon Stewart is more of a satirist than a political expert. His show isn't on CBS or NBC. It's on Comedy Central! The key word is comedy. The real point is to make people laugh. Yes, he skews information to make fun of people. If you want to watch an accurate news show, you shouldn't be watching The Daily Show on Comedy Central.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I do agree that news shows today are very opinionated. CBS is a very liberal station and shows clips and speeches that support liberal ideals. FOX on the other hand is a very conservative station, catering to the needs and wants of the average conservative. In order to get truly unbiased information about a political candidate, one must look on a legitimate and reliable website and make his or her own decision. I also agree with Jess Gurka regarding exaggeration of information. No one is telling lies. People, television shows, and newspapers all take information and stretch it out. If we were to equivalate this to science, these media formats would be physically changing information, not chemically.