In Russia, the main source of news is Isvestiaya, which, literally translated, means "News," and Pravda, which means "Truth." An old Russian saying remarks that, "In Isvestia, there is no news, as in Pravda, there is no truth," which can be the case, when the only outlet for news is the proper government bias,… In the US, we do have , or did have, a better set of ideas about news, and maybe truth, but with the decline of the marketability of media, the news we get becomes less and less useful, and more dependent upon what is said, and not what is fact.
The problem with news reporting today is that very little of it is news, it’s just a brief view of what is going on,…. for example, not 3 hours ago, here in Austin, a man was seen holding a gun to his head in a Greenbelt Parkway area, so the police decided to block off the highway near that area, and it remains closed. Ok, that was the news part of it the threat of a suicidal man causuing a traffic jam, and do we really want to know who the guy is, or why or anything else? I doubt it,… the majority of people can get this from the radio, or even a traffic report, so do we need to know more? Basically this is an event, but it’s more in the way of a warning to avoid that area,…. News, if we were to equate this situation to the media, is how to best get around this hazard, what, if any information the police might need to make this situation easier for them to deal with, and getting information from anyone who is there to evaluate what can be beneficial to the police or the public,…. Is that what news covers? No, it isn’t because the communication with the police is non-existent, Media reporters are usually seen as a hindrance and even a nuisance, when, in fact, if they were to actively tap into what people are seeing, and place this inforation over to the police, the value of information, from events, and then work as a means of helping the public avoid such instances with re-routing or other routes.
It isn’t just ongoing news, but how about Political events? We hear about things AFTER sessions are over, or from the mouths of politicians when they need support or to get their point across, is that sufficient, adequate and timely? Media is a source of current events note-taking, and what is failing to come across is the wide array of policies, affects and long-lange effects. Too much the idea of reporting is giving this politicians’ opinion or that, the possible outcomes according to,…etc., and not much information about the political programs and how this is being filtered and spread, is the situation one that is being contested for fiscal reasons? The complexity of the situation is forcing the politicians and the media to play a game of media "chicken," one side wants you to hear this point of view, and the other wants to point out,…it isn’t a battle of facts, but one of one-upmanship, which side has the best "spin" or the most following will out, and not the side which holds the most beneficial option, but then, how do you discern that, in the middle of an ongoing policy campaign? Political activity is very much of the "squeaky wheel gets the oils" mentality, in that it is the concerns and pointed push to enact programs that get action, and this is the way the media finds out, due to concerns, and, on the negative side, due to press releases which, chances are, are more canted to point out the point of view, rather than the situation as it should be seen. If a reporter gets improper information, or slurs a person due to a misquote or wrong statement, they can be held responsible, but what about a politician? When is the last time you heard of a politician being called upon a bad statement or a downright lie? The problem with being a reporter is the responsibility to be able to judge what is going on in a vastly confusing and ongoing story, while those on whom you report are not bound to be truthful, or give you the correct information to be able to understand what really is the situation, they have only to tell their own part of it, and hope that that side will be the more listened to or believed. it is a matter of perception, to deal and provide safely as a newsperson in the media, it is far easier, and safer to just point out what you are told, and not do the old "Dragnet" line of "I just want the facts, that’s all, just the facts." It’s becoming a situation where there is too much going on, and too many media groups will sit on the side of safety and try to get away with sending as few people out to gather facts, and just have an editor and producer cover what details they can to be "in the know" and say they were aware of the situation, but had no reason to detail how things were going or what the situation really was,…. Huh? That is the news part of it, to find out what is happening, why and to be able to know all the players involved, what their role is, and how they are trying to influence the outcomes. Aside from a knowledge of the issues, the actual job of News Reports in the media is to point out, for political and other events, what the background is, how the events have lead up to this point, and what should be expected in the future. Does this lead to the idea of media being badly focused, or even biased? It seems to me that rather than a bias, there is an absolute laziness in regards to pointing out the situation as a whole. For example, while here, in the United States, we were being told about Weapons of Mass Destruction being searched for in Iraq, other media, and in fact, other government agencies here and abroad were saying the opposite, that no evidence existed….. In the end, there was no evidence, but what was reported in the mainstream was the statements, without question, requirement of facts, because of the persons who made the statements. The fault is NOT wholly inside the media, but in the reliability of opinions and failure to question authority and demand evidence. So who do we blame? If anyone, we should blame ourselves for allowing such low-quality and insignificant reliance ofn the views, opinions and statements of people to stand as reliable sources and evidence. The fault from media is to not have enough information and without the adequate and insisted personnel and staff to back that up, the writers can compose whatever is being said, but in that, they real failure of the media is not in reporting, as they are doing as requested, pointing out what was told to them, but unless adequate background and investigation is performed to clarify and quantify these beliefs, the reporting is failing to provide facts, and increasing the amount of confusion and biased opinion. The fewer people who are involved in the information gathering, the less valid, and more useless the information is.
The manner of how this came to be is clear, fewer and fewer human resources are devoted to fact-finding, and more reliance is put upon "connections" resources and heresay, the networking becomes the only important source of information, so that those with the best interconnectivity have the best means to research and have the information necessary. Do we insist upon a group to come up with news? Or do we rely upon those who determine and create their own networking to be accurate and accessible enough to determine what is really going on? Since the profitability has succumbed in covering media, then the only safe and sure alternative has been to cut budgets, staff and reduce news media to the mention of events as they happen, with less reporting or investigation and no verification, and with no one in the media to point out the misstatements, fallacious remarks, and blatant bias of the political persuasion, media, and not politicians are the one who get blamed, because, let’s face it, politicians are not the most respected of individuals when it comes to speaking candidly and honestly. Why does the media take the blame for the failings in political coverage, when they are not the ones failing to be honest? because, quite simply, it IS their job to get the facts, prove the point, and at times, disprove the lies.
So how can we demand this to return to better practices? How do we get news to be useful? One thing you have done here is to read about the nature of the problem, and that, in itself, is a start, the next step is to demand that what you are served and presented as news from the media is, in fact, news and not a compilation of opinions and eccentric ideas, to demand that investigation and reporting are more significant that just telling you waht events happened, but helping to provide a public service that benefits the entire community and does not tend to divide it or become a nuisance within it. If we could manage to see the value and worth of communications and use the internet and massive amount of information and communication potential it contains, we might be able to get back to some semblance of Jornalism, and some purpose, rather than just talking about events, opinions, and hearsay.
