Evidence for a causal relationship between biased reporting and viewer 's behavioral change draw out mixed reactions that need to be understood. Ideologically, biased media present one-sided news; thus, confining a section of the population to polarized, influential, and slanted content. Therefore, biased media is bad for democracy because citizens are given information that is bias or slanted towards a particular political ideology. This limits the ability to think critically about which public policies and elected officials they
But nowadays it is all changed upside down. To attract the attention of people news is published in an over the top manner and this questions the ethics of journalism. Media plays destructive role instead of being constructive. The people who reads these kind of news or see violence on television they tend to trust less and assumes the world is dangerous than it is. POSITIVE EFFECTS Media also gives positive effects on people and society.
Some people believe that it is unethical to know so much about people and that people should have more freedom. However, people should, at least, be careful and investigate more when it comes to the media and news companies. Consequently, Malcolm X is correct in asserting that “If you are not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are oppressing,” because news companies write fake stories
Momentum allows candidates to get ahead in the campaign by using the media. Personally, the voters are able to get to know the potential candidates better. A well known name gets more attention. Since candidates have more opportunities to be seen, Voters are able to learn the political platform of candidates and their personalities. Neither
Governments like to be in command and supervise its citizens. With that, there are always some citizens that will rebel over the people in charge. People will rebel because they gain much knowledge from literature, news media, entertainment, and presently, the internet that contradicts the government. The government is intelligent because it has the power to change what the people look at to make them dense and without an opinion of what the government says. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury shows an accurate representation of what the government does to its people.
This is important because it connects fake news to misleading others. "All this amounts to a flight from the real world because the only way to sustain the spectacle is by making things ever more spectacular, and thus ever more fake." (Horvat II,2017) This is explaining how sometimes the more interesting an informative is the more fake it can be. This is important to know because it can relate how the more interesting it is the more fake it can be. With knowing that the media wants the consumer to get what they put out, people can conclude that there is fake news in our society.
However, this idea overshadows how similar our countries really are. Censorship occurs everywhere, even in the “Land of the Free”. Things are swept under the rug and kept from people for the “greater good”, but should not the greater good be for people to know what is going on in the world they live in? People constantly post things just to have them removed; social media is a tremendous platform to inform and educate people on things that the news refuses to cover or hides. Concealing information and censoring the media defeats the purpose of the First Amendment and goes against the foundation of our country.
It can be seen from different angles since many countries are determined to live in a free expression society but others want to enforce censorship in many situations. Countries that are against censorship is mainly because it can be very powerful in the sense that it can control what is shown on the news. It may present false statements and mislead the people in to believing things that are not true. If censored, everything would have to pass first through the government, and they may change some stories to please them. This can lead to only showing favoritism for certain brands or groups; companies may get to control the information that gets to the country.
Although this may seem like a good argument it unreasonable to think people will condom violent behaviors from just seeing about it in the news. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell, this quote is very important because even if do not want to hear about violence, they should have the right to see what is going on. People in society do not look up to criminals in anyway, criminals in the news are usually seen as monsters who don’t have a heart. Without being exposed to violence many people will go blind to abusive relationships because they think it’s normal. People who have violent thoughts won’t be able to get the help they need because the person does not know that it is wrong.
Losing labels that we put on others is also a problem with stereotyping in our society that we can easily fix and stop. The media is one of the hugest influences on stereotyping now in our society so if the media showed more positive and a more true impressions of the different people like religions, race, and sex people wouldn 't have a certain perception of others. One of the biggest things that might take a bit longer would be for people to start educating not just themselves, but others in our society, which would make a huge impact on this whole issue. Doing these things alone could help solve our issue in society of
They have so much power it can either make or break them. Media show both issues and problems, and advertisement. Without Stories and facts, the people will not agree until they see it. This is how the government and political communicate with the people by relying on the media to carry out their programs. If there weren 't media, then the government or political leader will not have persuasion.
Direct democracy via the internet does provide all Americans an easy method of voting and could potentially increase voter numbers. However, I do believe that the federal government should hold most of the power. Complex issues, such as international relations, military, and warfare, should be handled by the government. I do not trust the masses in such complex issues. But I do believe that for a direct democracy to be successful, there must be a set of guidelines in which the American public can vote of certain issues and also for the public to be well-informed in such matters.
None-the-less the information age has brought us many different incredible tools that enable quick and easy communication. It would appear that these tools, designed to bring us together could be the very factor that drives us apart. Mass media does not feel as if it should be considered a new technology when in reality it is. Media plays a both a positive and negative role in politics. Time will tell us whether the positives of mass media outweigh the negatives.
The reason Megyn Kelly chooses this part of the story was because people watch the program may have a strong conservative view on the handling of terrorists; it aims at assembling an audience that shares its point of view as Megyn Kelly. Questions like “What was the motive to leave his post?” or “What is the diplomatic protocol call for such actions?” There are more effective tactics to get straight answers from someone from the State Department. Megyn Kelly asking the wrong questions to the spokesperson can make he or she seem ignorant to the audience. Also, its misleading because of the question itself is stated as an opinion based question, not as a fact-based question. The proper way to ask a question in news report is to appeal to a universal audience by its non-political, objective point of view of the story and its commitment to reporting only the facts.
If people vote based upon lies and manipulations by the candidates and the news, the result of the election might not necessarily be what the people want or need. Lies can undermine the trust that people have in their governments, thus creating tensions that can result in violence. Even in instances in which the lies do no tangible harm (for example the lie Bill Clinton told when he testified to not having an affair with Monica Lewinski), they must be treated by the media and the public as unethical and unacceptable. The media must be liable for correcting misinformation both from candidates and more importantly from itself. But still a problem lies in the stories that the network decides to cover.