If a given issue poses no real threat to American people, or does not inhibit the democratic process, I believe objectivity is key. A perfect example of this is an issue which for a period in the beginning of President Obama's term was the most publicly discussed subject on the White House Blog: marijuana law reform. In the case of marijuana reform, which is more a civil rights issue, and one which poses no threat to American lives or violation of human rights, objectivity is essential. I believe that this is a case where no stance should be taken; only facts should be presented for the public to form opinions upon. Sensationalist propaganda is the reason for marijuana prohibition, which is unfair to the democratic process as it's a non-threatening issue which should be portrayed to the public objectively.
Something such as reporting on genocide, on the other hand, should allow more lateral movement on a stance being taken. If a journalist is reporting on genocide in Darfur, do you take no stance on the nature of the issue, giving an presentation of both genocide victims and the violent nomadic Janjaweed warriors committing the atrocities? I'm not sure about you, but while I would certainly want to hear the word of the Janjaweed, I'd take a clear and defined stance against them. In this case, I see no need total objectivity.
How is this decided? While the two examples I provided were very clear and defined, what about issues where the lines are less defined and in shades of grey? Who decides the level of objectivity when it is such a subjective concept?
One area I've found a lack of objectivity to be detrimental has been within the current healthcare bedlam unfolding in the United States. Since Obama's inauguration, reformation of the failed American healthcare system has been repeatedly promised to the public. The problem in this case? No progress has been made. The American people are entirely divided, taking no real informed stances beyond being against the "evil socialist" or the "right wing nutjobs." The portrayal of each party by various media sources has produced only a very simplistic image by which people may identify - the wholesome conservative or the progressive liberal. People are more concerned with beating the other team than observing the contents of the bills and coming to a solution.
In this FOX news session on the townhall meetings being called all over the nation to discuss health care, a very clear alignment is shown:
FOX News: Health Care Coverage
Only right-leaning arguments are showed, and when a left-leaning opposer of the Republicans is shown, she is portrayed in a very negative way. Adversely, liberal stations like CNN or MSNBC have taken clear, biased stances against the conservative approach.
This method of reporting on this important issue has left the country divided over a notion that they need to factionize within their parties more than discuss healthcare, and the actual bills being proposed have been deadlocked in Congress.
So you've got to ask yourself, if the major politically-aligned news stations such as FOX (Republican) and CNN (Democrat) were eliminated, and objective reports concerning the nature of the propsed healthcare bills were presented to the public, would we be in the mess we're in now?
6 comments:
Although the provincial governments manage Canadian healthcare, we have unlimited access to health insurance/free healthcare, however our health plan does not cover operations that are medically unnecessary, such as plastic surgery (i.e. breast implants, collagen injections, liposuction, etc). I have endured six invasive surgeries, including an eight hour open-heart surgery and it never cost a penny but that is besides the point.
I acknowledge health care costs some American families more than $200,000 per year and that is horrific. I am not too familiar with how the legislation is passed in the US and the government system in general. The Canadian Government is much different. Therefore please feel free to correct me if I am wrong because I don't think this issue of objectivity has to do with the media’s perception. I believe the issue has to do with the government and their actions.
As far as I am concerned... Despite however the media presents and comments on passing the new American healthcare bill, and eliminates stations with opposing perspectives, American citizens would still be in the same mess.
The ongoing disagreements will continue escalating... until Obama/Congress/ or whoever is responsible accomplishes providing American's with affordable and accessible healthcare to satisfy everyone. Realistically, Americans are dying everyday since they can't afford or access healthcare. It is very appalling that doctor's postpone treatments for patients whom can't afford the debt. It is ridiculous, surreal and absolutely heartbreaking! People deserve to be treated equally.
No offence, I think American's worry too much about taxes and seeking revenge in war. Although taxes on purchased goods and services are 13% in Ontario due to free services such as health care.
At the end of the day, nobody is ever denied access to a hospital or a doctor despite their financial circumstances or family history. Healthcare is a right and not a privilege.
And however media outlets present the issue. The problem and arguing will not subside until everyone stops talking, and action is taken to address the situation, and American’s have affordable and accessible healthcare. Ultimately, anyone can say what they think should happen, what they are going to do, and what will happen. However "ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS". Obama, American people, government officials and the media can say whatever they want… What people promise will have ABSOLUTLEY NO OBJECTIVITY or meaning, if no actions are taken to pass an affordable bill and people continue dying due to unaffordable healthcare.
Rather than debate the outcome of the health care crisis, I would like to express my agreement with the original sentiments regarding the media coverage of the developing legislation. As a lay person, unless I spend a significant amount of time trying to unspin the politics in the media coverage, I would not know what is going on. I have yet to see clear entirely fact based coverage of the legislation that does not slip down the slippery slope of the political debate, either on the air or in print. It would be refreshing to see that and I think that is what America needs as it relates to health care-objective coverage.
Back to the Fairness Doctrine we go. CNN claims that they have unbiased reporting, and to an extent I agree. They always get a person from both sides of the aisle to speak and the anchors try not to take sides. It actually irritates me sometimes and I wish they would take more of a stance. MSNBC is the polar opposite of FOX, they take sides and show it. Its very entertaining.
I think the media taking sides is just a price we have to pay to sometimes have a little unbiased news thrown in. Ratings are better when networks take sides, that's why they do. I wish we could just have news and filter out the nonsense but everyone has an agenda. The news outlets are just the latest victims of right and left wing propaganda.
The rich make money off the poor (and uninsured) so until that stops the media has no reason to stop the way they cover news. In fact, both parties take great pains to keep the system the way it is and divisive one sided opinions is the best way to do it.
Micheal.. I certainly agree that ,the way some of the TV networks report ,do clearly reveal there political views.The right wingers ,at FOX focus on comments and interviews to illustrate there negativity towards the current administration,while CNN is more likely with there democratic views to be more favorable.
I think that focusing on political views on news programs ,can be confusing to the general public and tend to give people an unclear picture of the real issues.Partisan Political views should be confined to programs that are specifically for that purpose.Reporting on the news and important relevant issues ,does not mean skewing stories towards the stations political alignments.
The health care reform issue has turned into an incidious political fiasco that has been ignited by partisan politics , effectivly fueled by the kind of journalism on these shows. This type of reporting clouds the ability for people to form unbiased opinions and see the issues clearly on there merit alone.
I present to each of you the following:
Let's eliminate the opinionated, ranting news networks from the equation entirely. No more FOX, no more MSNBC. Only totally objective, non-opinionated news; the simple feeding of facts on matters.
Rather than political ranting and the slandering of whatever the given political opponent may be, we get detailed, in depth explanations of the health care bill. Journalists, not "political analysts," delve into the specifics of the bill, breaking down and explaining the logistics of what's being proposed.
We now have an informed, educated public (or at last the ones who watch it). How does this effect the legislation of the bill? Does the informed public speak out more, creating a TRUE democratic process?
I think that it would be hard to pick and choose what topics deserve opinion and which topics should get inbiased facts. Part of what America is based on is the spirit of free debate that is hopefully based on some facts, but I don't see how we can totally eliminate opinion. Our judicial system is based on facts of cases, however the rulings take into consideration the opinions of the judges and the juries when applicable.
The problem that I have with the health care debates is that we are only getting bits and pieces of what seems to be a massive bill. Because of that, many pundits are in arms about these pieces that are being taken out of any reasonable context. It's not a question of whether or not we should debate healthcare, the question is what exactly are we debating?
Post a Comment