Chris Jewett
cj083711@ohio.edu
Healthy debate and difference of opinion are critical elements of a functioning society. They have led to landmark legislative accomplishments. Social Security and The Civil Rights Act were not popular across the political spectrum when they were introduced. They had detractors that were active in spreading information describing how they would be disastrous for the country. Seemingly well-intentioned candidates ran on platforms related to these issues and the public, using the best information available, chose those candidates accordingly.
That was a simpler time. Journalists and later television news anchors generally kept their personal opinions to themselves in their professional role. Sensationalism and the profit motive had yet to become a daily influence on their work. That's not to say that some stories weren't reported on with varying points of view. However, most people seemed to be able to agree on a certain set of facts. Even if they had differing interpretations of them That was the case when the newsroom was often considered a loss leader. As the pull for advertising dollars became a factor, that has changed.
Many news outlets have morphed into something that would have been unrecognizable to their predecessors. Some are now profit-driven to the point of saying nearly anything to satisfy a sponsor, while others have become deeply partisan echo chambers, disseminating all types of venom in order to further a particular ideology or candidate.
As an example, we can look at the case of Seth Rich. He was a young Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered in July 2016. Although there was ample evidence as well as a statement by police that the incident was a botched robbery attempt, that did not stop the conspiracy theories.
What is most troubling is that in spite of the facts, several groups wouldn't let this go. That may be expected from a fringe group, however, it didn't stop there.
In an effort to spark outrage in the final months before the 2016 election Fox News hosts including Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity and others refused to back away from the story for what can only be seen as cynical political propaganda. Even after the story had been debunked by several credible news organizations it took Fox News a week to retract the story.
There was a quote in this weeks reading by media critic Jon Katz that is worth noting: "I think you have to have a moral content in the work that you do for it really to have any meaning". On the surface, this may sound like a simple statement. However, with the relentless pressure for the ratings, or clicks, that generate the all-important advertising dollar, this is simply not the case in the first quarter of the 21st century.
I like how you used the line, "in spite of the facts..." This was powerful because quite often, especially the way people seem to see the world now. While I think there is a natural inclination to assume that any person who disagrees with another may just jump to the thought that this person is wrong. The problem is that there has become such a penchant to attack. It's amazing how these attacks are often times the heart of the story.
ReplyDeleteGregory Petersen (gp420718@ohio.edu)