Eye-Opener: Memo

It aint's necessarily so: Ch. 2 and Ch 3

in chapter 2, the author wrote: "findings will also get more attention if they fit the template that journalists use in making sense of the world" (52).

From this quote, I sense the need of affirmation. I don't know why we humans need to constantly reassert our existence. Just to reiterate the gist of the prologue, intro and chapter 1, the role of the "template" and social construction of what is "newsworthy," I sort of get the feeling of being "duped."

It's almost like back in ancient Greece with the Greeks: how they believed the gods were playing with their lives- What if Paranoia and the "Media" are the new gods? If you were to parallel both you'll see the similarities- the greeks used the gods to explain phenomenon, unexplainable stuff etc. (for example sun rise was attributed to Apollo/Phoebus pulling the sun using his golden chariot). In today's world, the News explains the trend or show facts or at least (supposedly) inform truthfully the public.

I don't know if the News group (organization) know the ratio of skeptical and attentive readers to ignorant mass of people relying on the News group to completely and honestly inform them.

I also wonder if the News group organization assumed that readers would automatically understand the context/operative definition stated by the "facts" or "numbers." Isn't it irresponsible on the News group organization's part to leave it to the audience to interpret something they don't completely know? Chapter 3 summarized this as underreporting (presenting a side to tell the story while 'de-emphasizing' the other).