Mar
Dear Media: Protect us from ourselves
Lorna Freeman
My Dad just sent me an interesting op-ed piece written by Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times. Like many media-focused discussions of the past month, his article, The Daily Me, leads off by lamenting the downfall of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
But unlike other columns I’ve read on this topic, most of which ask what daily newspaper closures mean for the future of US media (what will bloggers comment on when professional reporters are laid to waste?), he instead asks us to think about what this means for the future of media consumption.
One of the beauties of reading daily newspapers is their objective approach. Yes, every publication has its bias, but when a newspaper is intended to be the voice of a city it is at least encouraged to be balanced. And if it’s not, the citizens will voice their concern.
But blogs aren’t typically held to the same accountability. If I decided to start my own blog tomorrow, I could say whatever the heck I wanted to. And you’d have to read it. And if you didn’t like it, you could read another blog.
This has implications for readers. When we are left to pick and choose our own media sources, it’s natural for us to gravitate towards those that support our existing opinions and views. This means that, in the long run, we only end up reading articles that support what we believe. We tend to ignore opposing views, and as such, start closing our minds and see our way as the only way.
I’m just as guilty as the next person for reading what piques my interest. I follow people on Twitter who I find interesting, I read blogs that mesh with my interests, I subscribe to podcasts that mirror my political stance, and I set my reader to catch articles that are from outlets I support.
Will I damage myself if I read too much Pitchfork? Listen to Democracy Now too often? Follow Steve Acken on Twitter?
Tell me what you think. What can I do to make sure I’m not shutting off my mind in this new media landscape?
To me, there’s nothing like a good debate – especially one that makes me think differently from when the discussion started. As long as the opinion is thoughtful and intelligent, I’ll listen to it. I don’t think smart people will default to what they want to hear, but they may be attracted to the subjects that interest them. The trick is to uncover the stuff you never knew you were interested in until you started reading about it. Something tells me that that surprising gratification is more likely to come from the net, and not the Sunday papers.
[...] Lorna’s post earlier this week highlights some very valid concerns about the likelihood of receiving unbiased information if our newspapers give way to blogs and Twitter feeds. Something else I’ve noticed in the last few years is how much “news” is really opinion. From Fox News to MSNBC, the TV networks spend much more time analyzing, commenting and pontificating than they do reporting these days. By nature, most blogs are one person’s or organization’s viewpoint on the events of the day or topics within an industry. And, though created for entertainment purposes, more and more people actually get significant amounts of “news” from late-night TV. Even our traditional daily newspapers fill more inches and Web pages with op-eds, columns, discussions and live chats than ever before. [...]
[...] will bring an end to PR agencies. The notion seemed to be that credibility and veracity may well be chucked out the window now that everyone can be a published expert on any topic and join any conversation with any [...]