It ain't good to use ain't
For our IANS readings of the introduction and Part 1:
The introduction was a little long, but gave good depth in what the book would talk about and alos an inside look at what journalism is broken down in to. It was also somewhat of a wake-up-call for me, and really lets you know some do's and don't of journalism. I especially like this sentence, "In reality, no news other than that in which we directly participate can ever be 'immediate', it cannot come to us without first passing through the hands of another" (which made me think, 'thats why it's our job to do it correctly)
In Part 1 it's intresting how it starts out showing different bias's that some news casters have and how they pick and choose what to tell the public (which is wrong to do) And it's good that what's not reported can be criminal. It would be wrong to only give certain information(which could be bias) to get the attention of the public but withold that which would sway the publics intrest. I remember Dr. Jerz talking about the 'man bites dog' is newsworthy but 'dog bites man' is common and not newsworthy. It's intresting what things make the news and what is ignored. This theory explains why people have very unrealistic veiws of the world, since all they hear on the news or read in the paper are things meant to get their attention(and maybe inform them, but only on newsworthy topics)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It ain't good to use ain't.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/mt/mt-sp23oozye_tb.cgi/10688
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Dennis G. Jerz on It ain't good to use ain't: Those are some great insights,
Those are some great insights, Carrie!
The word "media" means "the middle" -- the media are always there, in between us and the experience being represented (by a painter who uses oils and canvas, a photographer who uses digital film, or a writer who uses words).
I hope that reading a book that presents case after case of instances where the journalists didn't get it right won't make you feel discouraged, or make you automatically think that no journalist can ever possibly do good work. But it does emphasize the importance of looking up several different versions of an important story before you can even begin to have a reasonable understanding of the events or issues being presented.
As the "Wild Sex Causes SUV Crash" discussion earlier in the term reveals, there are certain types of news stories, and certain ways of presenting those stories, that are almost guaranteed to draw a crowd. And as the "Iraq is boring, we want Anna!" CNN spoof showed, serious journalists are competing in an environment where trivial tabloid stories (celebrities walking down the red carpets or being arrested for DUI, etc.) are just a mouse click away.
I don't have the solution, but I do hope that as a class we can develop some strategies for dealing with complex information that could easily be "spun" to favor one side or the other. (Remember Dr. Sasmor's example -- "Nine out of ten smokers will die. But so will the tenth.")
Like I said in reference to your comment left on Jeremy's page, I like that you bring up the idea that we, as the consumer, only get the information that will get our attention. This is sad but so true. People generally say that they want all of the truth, and think that we are all getting it, but this book seems to bring up the idea that we are only getting what will get our attention and what certain places (networks, papers) want us to get. Good point.