Writers note here, I have failed. Not that anyone is waiting for these blogs to come out, but at the start of last fall, I said I would have a bunch out and be done by early this year. I utterly failed. I am about 1/2 way through what I wanted to do, and this will be the last one for a month or more as I have a lot of other things besides writing to do. So, this is just a moment of personal accountability. This is the last blog like this for a couple of months now. Hopefully, I will have a few to put out when I start again.
I have said it in this series and will repeat it. The most significant divide in society today is between the wealthy and the rest of us. More so than gays vs straight, black vs white, and Muslims vs Christians. By rich I don't mean people worth a million or even a few million. That's not wealthy. In 2002, I was told by 2046, I would need a million in the bank to retire and live comfortably. Not fancy, just the standard of middle-class living I was used to. That was 22 years ago; with the inflation we have seen in the last few years, I wonder if a million is still enough. Either way, a couple million isn't what it used to be. No, most people won't see that in their banks, but a million isn't that much when average homes push half a million or more now. The media is the most dangerous player in all this. It keeps your eyes focused on everything else; it pours fear into your ears and sows division; the media is truly the scariest thing today.
My last entry was on social media, and dumb me, I forgot to put the main point! Social media could have been the most remarkable thing for democracy, connecting politicians to their constituents. Elected officials could be in touch with the people they are supposed to represent, genuine democracy. Like everything else, somewhere along the line, that dream died. Social media has become a place to insult "troll" politicians that people don't like. The terrifying thing about politics was the impact social media could have. Both federally and provincially, we had elections in 2015. Conservatives went out on both levels for many reasons, but a significant factor is they were terrible on social media. This is the way to motivate the young voters! The conservatives looked like dinosaurs, and I believe they underestimated how impactful social media was. Since then, the Conservative presence on social media has been a considerable upswing. The other thing with social media and politics is it is easy to mislead. I can go online right now and post that I saw a politician I don't like doing cocaine in the washroom. Chances are, with my few hundred followers, it never gets noticed, but say an "influencer" reposts it, and it spreads. I am affecting that person's political life and livelihood. I may be forced to take it down if it isn't true, but the damage has already been done. Sure, it goes away, but that thought, true or not, has been put out there. Mudslinging was easy enough before; now, it is downright dangerous. So again, Social Media should have made politics more democratic, but we also ruined that.
This blog is on media in general, and I am sticking to news media. Twenty-three years ago, I went to Grant MacEwan to study journalism. Full disclosure: I never finished. I dropped out and did nothing in that field for a living. However, a few things stick out in my mind. On day 1 of our reporting class, the first thing the professor said was that Sun Media is a hack organization, and any article from it would not be accepted in class. Right there, that's a red flag. In educating journalists, they are being forced to be biased. From there, the biggest issue in news media is a lack of fairness and accuracy in reporting. Accept it; all news agencies now have a spin. They don't stay around by selling hard copies or online. For example, they make money with ads, so whoever gives it will decide how the News is portrayed.
"Young man shot by police during an attempted daytime robbery." Say that's the headline. The fact is that it is the News. You will see VERY different articles depending on where they come from and what the media wants to portray. The actual News is the attempted robbery and the cop shooting the robber. Everything else is noise. The fact is the person doesn't matter. Not their race, not their history, hell, not even their name. The News is a robbery was stopped by the police, and the robber was killed. If it is a conservative paper (These are generalizations, and I am sorry for that), we will hear about the crime rate or, if they aren't in power, how light the government is on crime. If it is a more liberal paper, you probably hear more about the shooter and how he was turning his life around, probably from friends and family. Again, none of that matters to the real story. NOW, if he is not a Caucasian, we are going to see a lot more from the liberal media. Chances are it will be anti-cop. That is the flavor of the day. There is nothing wrong with looking into allegations like that. We need to keep police in line as well. However, that is not what this story is. Write a separate expose on that and use this shooting as an example. It is foolish to think that all those things don't come into play; they do—a past criminal record, race, police history, BUT they aren't the News. News is what is breaking at that moment, and if you publish "Cops shoot man during a robbery," It will get a different reaction than "Cops shoot gang member during an attempted robbery" or "Cops shoot young black man during an attempted robbery" News needs to stick to facts and needs to avoid "clickbait" News should not be "opinions" and it should not be an echo chamber, simply facts.
If it bleeds, it leads! That is what we were also told in Journalism 101. Covid exploded this, and it shows what the media can do. The world shut down, people were scared, and the fear exploded because we fed it. Daily counts of how many new cases were broadcast, how many deaths and intensive care treatments were shown. (I am not here on this blog to debate how bad or not covid was. I got my shots and did as I was asked.) Rarely was it shown what a small % of people passed away, and rarely was it shown the recovery %, which was much higher and probably would have helped some people's minds. We were fed the scary numbers cause if it bleeds, it leads. I am not going into conspiracy; I am simply going with an old media adage. The media could have handled that much better, but positivity isn't the media business. Keeping viewers coming back is, sadly, humans are drawn to tragedy, fear, and death. If it bleeds, it leads.
Everyone is a journalist now. People are losing their jobs at major media outlets and then going on social media, saying they are journalists. They still are, but at that point, they are not giving honest, unbiased News or facts. They are simply spouting what they believe, which is rarely accurate, just one side of the coin. As a rule of thumb, any media asking for donations, while yes, it is independent, and I guarantee they repeat that over and over, is likely grifting you. They are an echo chamber. You are getting nothing but your views reinforced. Also, everyone with a phone thinks they are a journalist. I started following a local account with updated News in the city. Knowing things before the 5 o'clock news hour or the morning news is excellent. However, it seems like many people now want to be "influencers" and record things as they happen and post them rather than do anything. I am not saying a person needs to jump into a dangerous situation, but when did we stand around and record things rather than help, call for help, or be useful in general? We have become more obsessed with creating content than News or being decent humans.
So, as with most things, follow the money. No matter what media form, there are going to be ads. Please pay attention to what ads are being shown; that's where the dollars are coming from, and chances are they influence the media you see. That isn't always true; I have heard ads for the exact opposite of the host's views in some podcasts, but that is rare. Or look at the owner. Rupert Murdoch is a prime example of that. Or even the CBC here in Canada. I won't say I hate CBC like many; the fact is they do have some good journalism. The issue again is presentation. It may or may not be true, BUT it seems like a lot of the things they do are very pro-Liberal party that did give them a lot of money. The nice thing about "independent" media is it is easy to see where the cash comes from—usually a grift to keep the echo chamber going. If no differing opinions are offered, it isn't fair and balanced media.
I did have an idea to get fair and balanced media, but I wonder if anyone will go for it—point and counterpoint. You have two intelligent, well-spoken newscasters that have differing opinions. They present the News and CALMLY talk about it. Each states facts ONLY relevant to the current issue and isn't a debate. I encourage discussion and thoughts on why each person feels the way they do or believes it applies to the case. Now, this would have to be very structured, of course. You couldn't have two talking heads on it, but people who want to give accurate News. Of course, the problem would be ownership. Whoever owns it will put their spin on it, which is very hard to counteract. Trump said he couldn't be bought, but of course, we all know his right-wing leanings. It can't just be some rich person saying they want to do it but a group, maybe split ownership. I was thinking of something like the CBC here in Canada, but it will lean toward state ideals when something is state-sponsored.
As a side note, we should have more positivity. This isn't something I can back up or debate, just my own ending and feelings, which I did say I was keeping out of these blogs, but oh well, we need this..... I often go to Moxies for appies and a drink in the afternoon. The lounge shows happy TV. I don't know if it is a channel or an app, but it all is funny, happy clips. I smile quite often when watching it. With all news programs, they should have to show these clips before commercials or something. It is the opposite of "bleeds, leads." People would still like it, and you could have a bit of light starting or ending the day. Not just negativity.
Comments
Post a Comment