The media’s selective coverage of certain issues works to worsen problems in society and create problems.
The medias sensationalist 24hr coverage of select issues such as terrorism, illness that 'could possibly' become a 'global pandemic' and murder cases create unnecessary panic among the public. The media should be broadcast/write more responsibly so as not to create or exentuate problems.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The media has a duty to report any news it feels the public needs to hear about
The media should be free to choose what it broadcasts or writes about so that the public has free access to information. The public has a right to know.
Information inundation harms information also. Too much information confuses people. Every bit of available information cannot realistically be shared with the public. The public understands that they are being exposed to selective data. That the news media is sharing its version of the story. Different news stations therefore; have different fan bases. However, the hard facts in the coverage of the same story are the same for all news stations. 'That' is your objectivity/transparency.
Absolutely agree that every media has its right to broadcast/write any news they want, as it is their job and obligation to do so. However, the media itself has a social responsibility which has to be carried out to the society by filtering certain issues that are considered improper to be published with one or some arguable reasons to be deemed.
While it is true that it is the media's responsibility somewhat to filter information, they also have an obligation to provide all types of information to the mass, giving them wider choice of information. They should not impose a particular viewership or readership unto their clientele.
It is the responsibility of the media to not distort information. When the news media claims to be transparent and objective, it is relaying the idea of delivering perfect information to the public. Cutting what it deems inappropriate out, is not even making the 'effort' to relay the real news.
Reiterating that the public has the right to know, should not be shielded from the facts and not be spoon-fed selected misleading subjective tit bits of what originated as information.
Coverage of things such as swine and bird flu spread unnecessary unsubstantiated panic
The media irresponsibly takes a quote from a professor of medicine on the worst case scenario 'it could be a global pandemic' and emphasizes this point as if this is the inevitable progression of the disease. This was the case for both the bird and swine flu epidemics. In reality a small number of people were affected by the diseases. In the case of swine flu, normal flu actually kills more people every year.
Counterargument: It is the responsibility of physicians to do be up to date on the most recent health concerns, particularly the emergency physicians, so they can properly diagnose their patients. The media is responsible to address the issue, but too much attention was paid to these 'pandemics' and the media irresponsibly boosted fear, not awareness.
A pandemic is always global; an endemic is local. Don't shoot the messenger. The media also calms people down about these issues. It was the news that got doctors to relay that most of us cannot contract the virus.
Also; no awareness of swine flu would hypothetically have translated to no cure, no funding and no research. The fact that the news propagated the swine flu threat meant that lives were saved; many patients who would've otherwise dismissed their (fatal)illness as the common cold; recovered in hospital beds.
The way murder hunts/cases are covered could be giving copycats and those seeking a legacy a place in history
Programmes created by the media such as the specials covering the Raoul Moat murders and the Derick Bird shootings create a sort of glamourous position on tv for these individuals. More so are programmes such as the 'Britain's deadliest murderers' which work to glamourize and immortalise their 'legacies' in history. This could arguably lead to copycats who seek their place in history.
Agreed, that such coverage inspires bad eggs. However, the chase more than usual, acts as a deterrent. It scares wannabe criminals. Reminding them of how they will be chased,cornered and at times gunned down.
This essentially, counters the effect of the glamorized attractive criminal life ubiquitously projected by the international film industry.
Often only one side of an argument is available.
A lot of the mass media produce very one sided, sensationalist often right wing views on terrorism, illness, murders and rapes. More often than not this is to generate sales, and it works! The Sun is the best selling newspaper in the U.K. Murderers, Paedophiles and Terrorists are exploited by the Tabloid newspapers to make money. They know what they are doing and they know what sells. In doing this they often succeed in making many people think that there is no alternative argument, and if someone was to challenge it, then they would be wrong. This is wrong and both sides of an argument should be available to the reader.
Selective coverage curtails freedom of speech by hiding information that is relevant but not suited to the tastes of certain news people.
The selective coverage by the media is something which makes this country great. It shows the freedom of speech and expression, and because of this, no matter what rubbish they want to print, they should be allowed to do so because it is an important part of our society.
Newspapers report sensationalist stories beacuse they sell.
The papers report on sensational issues beacuse they sell papers.
It is clear the floods in Pakistan are a more devastating issue than whether Peter Crouch has cheated on Abbey Clancey, but what has made the front pages? Likewise Charles Taylors war crimes are far more serious, yet it wouldn't have recieved so much attention had Naomi Campbell not been involved. I wouldn't have had a clue who he was, or what he had done unless I saw the pictures of her giving evidence in court, but it made me take notice.
It has become part of our culture, we love a good scandal, if only to make ourselves feel better. The papers exaggerate stories because it is more exciting to read. But it doesn't mean we have to take what they write as gospel. The speculation over facts gives us something to natter about with friends as we escape for a moment from our own problems to realise that there are many people much worse off than us, and many things just simply out of our control.
I agree it is not fair when papers play up certain facts to scaremonger, or exaggerate issues just to make a story juicier.
A completely balanced argument is not often presented and this can persuade public opinion. In extreme cases this can lead to misguided actions, such as prejudice and fear toward people wearing a burkha for exmaple, or the outpouring of sympathy for Raul Moat after his death was broadcast.
Despite this, newspapers cannot be held responisble for peoples actions, yet they should have an understanding of the power and influence they can have.
Is the most effective way to spread important information
The internet and traditional mass media are the most effective ways to spread information on the world rigth now. Its creation changed forever our access to information and has become an indispensable part of daily life in the modern world.
But we have to remember that less than 30% of our global population has access to the internet [[http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm]], therefore, media 24hour intense broadcasting of illness prevention or possible spread, terrorist menaces and murder cases become, on most cases, vital for people's security. No matter the opinions on these matters, they always promote prevention, maybe it can seem obsesive and repetitive... but what if you only have access to traditional media on a determined hour of a day? can the governments truly take on the task of informing all of its population of such things? can they have similar reach?
The spread of a certain illness, murders and terrorist threats ARE A PROBLEM, its coverage, helps PREVENT THEM.
The value of prevention can only be truly understood by those who underestimated it when they most needed it.
What do you think?