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.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Selective coverage curtails freedom of speech by hiding information that is relevant but not suited to the tastes of certain news people.
Newspapers report sensationalist stories beacuse they sell.
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.
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
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?