There are many different ways to get one’s daily dosage of news; there’s
the television, the radio, the internet, and of course, the newspaper. However,
often times people feel that the information they are consuming from the news
lacks accuracy and many of the important details. The truth of the matter is that
the news isn’t always accurate and doesn’t always have all of the important
details on a story. For this reason one must put in a bit of extra effort and
do a bit of research on their own in order to obtain the most accurate story
that they possibly can. Unfortunately bias is inevitable, and one cannot solely
rely on one source to get all of their news from because most of the time they
will only be getting one side of the story. The solution to this problem comes
with time; there is no quick and easy way to attain a perfectly unbiased,
completely accurate, and carefully detailed understanding of any news story. One
must be wiling to explore their options, they must be willing to get out of
their comfort zone and try reading a different newspaper or watching a
different news channel. By doing this they will get a sense of the different
attitudes and views of the various news sources available to them. Once one has
tested the waters they can then apply their knowledge of who’s biased towards
what and seek information from opposing sources to build a more accurate stories
for themselves as well as their own opinions. The internet, although it may seem
a bit intimidating, is actually a great resource to use because its fast,
efficient, and holds an enormous amount of information. By using the internet
one can find many different sources, opinions, and stories to help build their
own personal and accurate understanding of the news. The key is just being
willing to set aside the time to check out a couple of different websites that
will provide different views on a certain topic.
-Georgia Nicholas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since there are so many different news outlets, certain authors/media outlets have gained credibility. Generally, these are the persons who cover and publish the most credible stories. Thusly, these stations are the ones people tend to visit to for the most important and accurate information. Some examples of credible media outlets include news stations such as CNN and BBC, newspapers such as the NY Times, Boston Globe, and documentaries that gross a lot of money. Websites like Google help human beings sift through their information. If you type in a certain subject on Google, the first results that pop up are usually the biggest and most accredited news sites. In addition, written articles are signed by authors. Sometimes these authors have short descriptions about them that include where they were educated, which leads certain people to believe that the article written is believable/worthy of reading given the author went to a recognizable institution. There are many inconspicuous powers at work that lead us to pick and choose what information we want to take in or out.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Luc, there are so many news outlets out there that can often overwhelm the public. Which newspaper should I follow? What TV channel will give me the best information? Due to the overwhelming amount of media being thrown at our faces every day, we, the individual citizens, need to do our part and spend time researching and learning what sources to trust and who to listen to as Georgia elaborated on. We can make this choice by ruling out what is unimportant to us and what does not interest us. Once we have concluded that (for example) we do not like celebrity gossip and prefer political debates, we then make the choice to tune out all the media outlets that contain information about stories that we rather not listen to or care for. If we do spend the time to determine what matters most to us, the media would simply overwhelm us. It could cause someone to lose trust in the media if all they hear are many sides to the same story. This could conclude them to think that all the media does is tell lies. Therefore it is important for us to narrow out what we do not care for and what news network/ source we prefer. By taking the time to determine our interests, we will eliminate sources we do not trust as well. As Luc said, we want to follow the news source with the best credibility. Finding a source that meets one’s own needs for credibility comes from a person’s willingness to investigate and choose their preferred source of media. Overall, choosing to follow the media comes with a certain kind of responsibility.
ReplyDelete- Celine Olcott
It’s easy to get lost in the information age. With an overabundance of news and entertainment, we are often conflicted with unwanted litter but can filter in what pleases us. But this can also lead to blasphemous and possibly false info. In order to submit ourselves to accurate and globally relevant information, we must garner historically accurate outlets such as the aforementioned BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and periodicals such as New York Times and Time magazine. It is also relatively safe to rely on online fact-checkers when browsing internet resources. Back to the question of ‘how’; as individuals, it can be difficult to discipline ourselves to focus on relevant worldly issues and genuinely care about what’s going around us rather humorous farce or social media often found online. A liberal balance of both I think is best. However this most certainly depends on age group. As a student I feel that it is increasingly necessary to be knowledgeable on current events, no matter one’s field of study. We can potentially block websites such as Facebook for certain periods of the day. However sites such as twitter strongly depend on whom you follow-this concept actually applies to just about any outlet. It’s your will to follow the wave of vital info or sink into memes and other stuff.
ReplyDelete-Omar Peña
No matter how many hours one spends surfing the Internet or how many sides one hears of the same story, it is not really possible to be sure of the facts. When facts contradict each other, it’s hard to know who told it best. And, there are always facts that are never published anywhere. So, while I think that Georgia’s suggestion is excellent, I do not think that checking many sources will ensure that the reader consumes the right information. Nor do I think that determining our interests, as Celine suggested, will help one eliminate untrustworthy sources. Instead, this method might trap readers in the echo chambers that Gladstone discusses, which are certainly confidence bolstering but not necessarily accurate. Or, as in my case, only investigating material of interest could mean too much time wasted reading the tabloids. My suggestion is that the reader is always well informed about the author. Ask: What are the political leanings of this journalist? Of this publication? What other material do they cover? This proposal does not improve the quality of the information available, but it does help the reader put information in context. It is also time efficient – if one is familiar with the bias of a particular source, it may be easier to read between the lines and unnecessary to read every other account. My proposal does, however, only address the accuracy of information. To help the reader also consume the most important information, I suggest browsing the top headlines of international sources, like the Guardian and, as Omar said, Al Jazeera. In addition to covering a wider variety of subjects and putting local news in perspective, these websites will provide insight as to what other countries consider the "breaking news."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Charlotte's point about the futility of trying to find all of the facts. Just as Gladstone describes in The Influencing Machine, finding the source of a story is like being in a house of mirrors. The images (details) are reflected and distorted so much it is impossible to be sure where the image originated. I also believe that it is the sad truth that most people won't take the time to actually try and verify sources or the credibility of an author. That shows how we as consumers of the media are almost at the mercy of the media in terms of what information they want to give us due to the lack of time and effort that should be used for checking facts.
ReplyDelete-Jahmel Jordon
I agree completely with Georgia that in order for us to ensure that we consume only the most important news, we really have to “get out of our comfort zone.” We have to be willing to listen to many outlets, especially ones that have a completely different viewpoint from us. Most apparent are how conservatives should be more willing to listen to liberal outlets, and vice versa, but this idea also extends to aspects other than political alignment. Internationality, for example, also matters. Beyond listening to CNN, we should also listen to BBC for more European-focused news or to Al Jazeera for the Middle East perspective on recent events. By listening to outlets from different geopolitical regions, we would be able to help ourselves consume (what we think) are the most important news.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also think that it will be difficult to continually “get out of our comfort zone.” As we listen to news outlets from different sections of the political spectrum and the world, we will eventually find a select few that we agree with the most. Because their biases are most similar to our own biases, these select few outlets will then become the ones that we think are providing us with the most important and accurate news. For this reason, it will be crucial to continually “get out of our comfort zone,” especially when you think you’ve found an outlet that best suit your needs.
I trust that many consumers know the difference between a reliable source and a non-reliable source; I do not believe that is a problem. I do believe that the greater problem, however, is that we are constantly looking for information inside of our echo chambers. “We must look outside of our comfort zone,” as Win states and begin to understand different view points, stories and opinions on what is occurring around us but also in worlds far beyond our reach; this is the only way we will begin to understand what is happening beyond our echo chambers. If we look for other reliable sources for news nationally as well as internationally, we become better informed and aware. In addition to stepping out of our comfort zone, we must also know who is writing our news. In addition to looking outside our comfort zones, we must rely on our credible sources, as Luc mentions. There are newspapers, news channels and radio stations known for being extremely reliable and tend to stay away from explicitly displaying biases that consumers can depend on for accurate information. Lastly, the consumer has to regulary check the news and stay updated. The media is always at our disposal, we must actively participate in it in order to understand how to get the most information out of it.
ReplyDeleteP Montas
Due to the constant news and media flying at us in such a globally connected world, it can become overwhelming to decide what is important as well as what is accurate information. I agree with what many people have said, in that obtaining absolutely all the correct and detailed facts without any bias is nearly impossible to do without putting in any effort of your own. If this weren’t true, then we would be living in a perfect world!
ReplyDeleteGeorgia makes a great point about utilizing the Internet, and how with determination one can track down the facts and become more informed. Gladstone also highlights how important this new and advanced sources it, stating:
“Nowadays, the Internet enables us to challenge and check facts instantaneously, making errors virtually impossible to cover up … Journalism has entered a new era of openness, all in the interest of building trust with new consumers” (Gladstone, 47).
Although I disagree with the level of “openness” she states the media is with consumers, I think that the Internet allows people to keep themselves well informed and able to recognize an untrustworthy source. Indeed, often one’s search results are catered and filtered for them personally, but without it we would probably be living in a bubble with only the media deciding what is/isn’t important for us.
I agree with many of Georgia’s assertions because they are inline with what Mel had to say in his post, for the most part, and because of how they correlate to the post that I made last week about media bias. Georgia, like Mel, believes that there is a responsibility that the consumers must have to getting the most accurate information possible. Her plan of attack though, is one that I believe has both pros and cons. First, I am a believer in the philosophy that she presents – to read many different newspapers, listen to different radio stations and watch different networks. In fact, it shown in one of my favorite movies, The Dead Poet Society - “to truly understand a situation, one must change the way in which they look at a situation once they are comfortable with their opinion.” However, I do not see this as possible in the lives that Americans lead today. With such busy schedules and many other responsibilities, it seems as though nobody ever has time, thus they watch that one network or listen to that one radio station or read that one newspaper. The root of this dilemma, in my mind, is the every growing busyness in our lives. I, just as Georgia and Mel, believe that this is a pertinent issue, for it is the consumers’ responsibility to sort through the inevitable bias; however, is it really feasible for us, as working individuals in America to do such a thing?
ReplyDelete-Akaash
In a lot of the previous comments, I’ve noticed the common idea that we as individual citizens should be taking the time out to read multiple news sources in order to give ourselves a full perspective on the events taking place in our world. However, I feel as though we are making these statements under the assumption that average news consumer has the time to check multiple news outlets each time they wish to view some news.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the limitless supply of news at our disposal is almost a hindrance. With all the information available to us, consuming the “most important” AND “most accurate” information could be a never-ending task. I personally think it is better to stick to the one or two sources that we’ve grown to trust. I think it is a fair assumption that we watch or read the news outlets that we feel provide us with the information that it most important and accurate. Therefore by taking strides to attain information from multiple outlets, I worry that us citizens would run the risk of attaining more uncertainty than knowledge.
Kobby Adu-Diawuo
We as consumers of media have to try to consume the most accurate and important information there is out there. You can do this in two major ways. First, you should look through two or three major respected news sources every day. It would be even better if each source was from a different type of media. For example, Fox News (tv), the New York Times (paper),and Yahoo (online). It's also a good idea to try to consume media with different biases. So, don't be consuming all right leaning media or left leaning media. With these two rules, you can do a very good job of consuming the most important and accurate information out there.
ReplyDeleteI do not entirely agree with Celine's comment. While I do believe there is a certain kind of responsibility in choosing a news or media outlet, this responsibility is to choose sources that give varying points of view and opinions. At this point we realize that biases are a given. It is our duty as consumers to arm ourselves with a diverse assortment of media. Simply weeding out what we do not like to focus on the sites, channels, or papers that make us the most comfortable is neglecting our duty as consumers to be well rounded. In being well rounded we can gain a fuller appreciation for the truth behind the story. While Kobby's point is valid that people may not have time to check multiple sources, I do not think that these multiple sources will cause more uncertainty than clarity. I believe the multiple angles will allow consumers to take in so many different view points that they have no choice but to have their own opinion. If they take at face value every bias they see on every station, then there will be mass confusion. I like to believe that people have enough sense of self to sift through multiple biases and form their own opinions from the mass of information given.
ReplyDelete- Connor Drinon
The Le_Meridian Funding Service went above and beyond their requirements to assist me with my loan which i used expand my pharmacy business,They were friendly, professional, and absolute gems to work with.I will recommend anyone looking for loan to contact. Email..lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com Or lfdsloans@outlook.com.WhatsApp ... + 19893943740.
ReplyDelete