These days, it
seems as though the Conservative and Liberal Media really have it out for each
other. Each side constantly blames the other for expressing too much bias towards
their side. It seems like every time I turn on the news or read a blog,
everyone is pointing fingers as to why something did,
or didn't happen. But, what about the actual content of the
news? It’s true that it’s important for the government to take blame for their
actions. However, at a certain point, Americans don’t care whose fault it is,
they just want the problem dealt with; let’s take for example the sequester.
The media seems to be having a field day with the sequester drama. The
sequester, like other political news is more attractive in the media if it is portrayed
as a crisis. People get bored when it comes to political news. Thus, the media
has to dramatize these storylines in order to get more ratings. If they reported
that both parties were working together, the news would get fewer ratings. In
reality, the American public thrives on conflict and finds it more interesting
than agreement. In the end, it is no surprise that media coverage has been very
dramatic and biased.
The media coverage for the sequester has varied depending on which political
party’s news outlet you follow. Conservative blame the “liberal media” for being too
“dramatic” about the sequester. They blame liberals for
instilling fear of tax cuts to the public. Also, they argue that liberal
journalists are just conveying talking points to the President’s agenda. In
other words, Fox News is basically calling the liberal media “puppets of the
presidents.” The theory that the President can influence public opinion through
the media is correct. The more favorable news coverage the President gets, the
higher his approval rating goes. Conservatives fear that if liberal journalist
constantly blame Republican’s for not doing anything about the sequester, then
the Republican approval ratings will drop.
On the other side of the
argument, liberals blame conservative media for putting too much blame on the
President. Liberal journalists blame Republican lawmakers for not being open to compromise. Democrats argue that they have been willing to comprise for a
long period of time, but they are not getting the same response from the
Republican Party. Instead, conservatives have taken a “my way or the high way”
approach. When they do not get their way, they openly blame the President and other democrats for not comprising. I think that it is
easy for journalist to blame the President because he is an easy target. Unlike
the 535 Members of Congress, the media can easily point blame on the president.
The president’s actions are also very easy to track because he is just one
person. Criticizing and critiquing his actions is cheap, easy, and makes for
good entertainment. The press is more likely to echo extreme opinions from
commentators or partisan news media because of the entertainment factor; the audience
thrives for a type of infotainment broadcasting.
So who is right? Are the liberals being to
dramatic about the tax cuts, or the Conservative putting too much blame on the
President? If I took a side and blamed liberals or conservative, then I would
be just as guilty as the media. I want to take a non-partisan approach in this
piece and say that both conservative and liberals are to blame. There is
bias on both sides, which in turn carries over to the American people. Democrats
blame Republican lawmakers for only caring about wealthy business owners.
Republicans blame Democrats for wanting to give money to lazy people who do not
want to work. These arguments will eventually cause a separation between the
American people. The extreme view of partisan media strengthens the viewer’s
political identity and limits their worldviews. This in turns creates a heightened
distrust of mainstream media on the part of the viewers.
I think it’s time for the media as a whole to
stop assigning blame and start focusing on the real issues at hand. I
have come to believe that media bias will be a never ending debate. It is more
entertaining for one side to point out flaws and blame others, instead of
talking about the real issue at hand. People already have distrust in
government and find politics boring. In order to get ratings, news channels
have to make the news worth watching!
I think that this is an interesting argument and you do a good job of taking an impartial position on the issue of biased media on both sides of the political aisle. Do you think that one side is maybe doing a better job in articulating their biased opinions that make its way to the American public? (So could it be possible that President Obama won re-election because the liberal messages were more effective?) In other words, does the liberal media do a better job at getting their message out to the public or does a more right-leaning outlet do a better job? With that said, I wonder if all news stations suddenly became non-partisan, that public opinion would change. Otherwise, I like the overall content and the embedded video clips.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides put way too blame on each other, and not themselves. Conservatives and Liberals,both, are responsible for creating media bias. I agree with your comment when you talk about how every time you turn on the news or read a blog, a politician is pointing fingers as to why something did, or didn't happen. I agree that the bias that is taking place in Washington is getting out of control,and the media is having a field day about it. (Both Liberal and Conservative media outlets) Media bias will continue to be a never ending debate until Liberals and Conservatives stop thinking about their egos and public opinion. But until that is achieved, news outlets will continue to do all they can to get higher ratings and more viewers.
ReplyDeleteYou are definitely in hot pursuit of the ruth, which is a quality that I admire in your post. Also, your calling out of all extreme news sources for finger-pointing feels very meta, making me trust you more as a result. What I am wondering is what possible strategies there could be for cutting through the finger-pointing and getting to the news? That would be interesting to explore. I agree with you that the finger-pointing isn't getting us anywhere as a country, but I wonder if there were a way for us citizens to absorb all of these truths, digest them, and settle on a detailed, fact-based story that is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, in between the left and the right. The scary thing is that all people interpret the truth differently, so how can we cut out as many middlemen as possible?
ReplyDeleteYou find a very wonderful balance between the left and right, painting a picture of someone who just wants to know what is really going on underneath the ruckus. I am seriously interested in your search and want to see where it takes you.
Very effective use of links and videos in the post, to help demonstrate your points about the content of the coverage. I think you have an opportunity here to make an even more nuanced argument in line with course themes, and one which you start to get at toward the very end of the post. Given what we have discussed about the general nature of news coverage of politics, why do you think that these storylines of (1) the sequester as a crisis and (2) the absence of leadership from the president would prove so attractive to news media outlets? You could deal with each of these separately, to try and explain why when the political parties express these views, that they find the press is very willing to take them up and echo them, and cover the story in these ways. There are also some typos and grammatical issues that you will want to identify and fix.
ReplyDelete