Media’s Role in Current Events

The advancement of technology has revolutionized the way the people get information about their government and current events. The constant debate is if this revolution is improving the political environment or is it actually a detriment to our democracy. In one eye, these sources are seen as biased ways for profit motivated companies to maximize their viewers. There is no doubt that the newer outlets of political and breaking news have had an increase in viewership, thus creating a larger revenue for the companies who participate in the digital age. In 2016, Pew conducted research on the annual economic trend in 2015 compared to previous years. The revenue for cable TV news sources rose 10%, Network TV rose 6% for evening programs and 14% for morning programs, Digital ad revenue for online outlets grew 20%, while newspapers lost 8% of their revenue. Even many years after the introduction of television and the internet, there is still a trend of viewers moving from the traditional newspaper to the new digitalized version of their news.

The chapter argues the disadvantages to the readily available websites and blogs most citizens flock to. Some websites are fact-based such as fact check sites or candidate’s websites, others are more opinion based such as blog posts or political websites such as Fox News and CNN. With the differing of reliable resources, views must be careful of common biases. Through framing, journalists can spin the story to further fall in these boundaries. The way the outlet source frames their story, what stories they actually cover, and how much airtime these stories get, are determining factors in their agenda to stereotype the outlet to a specific political party. According to Pew research, only two in ten American trust their local news and only 18% trust national news organizations. While the technological sources have negative effects on the political culture, it still has a positive influence on the American people. With this information readily available every time we pick up our phone, surf the internet, or check our emails we are able to learn about the current news. This constant availability allows us to be semi-informed of the top news stories and most recent current events. One very large advantage digital news outlets have over newspapers, is the ability to constantly push information out to people for updates on a story that is happening. Americans constantly follow current events as they unfold. They rarely have the choice to choose because the story is plastered all over the internet and their social media.

The newest question raised is the influence of these biased political outlets have on current events, such as the Vegas Shooting. This horrific incident was all over the news as soon as one outlet got wind of it. My personal experience with being informed of the tragedy was when I woke up in the morning, my phone was full of news notifications with updates of the event. Other people first heard of the event through the news, as it was breaking news on every television station. When it comes to events like these where constant updates are circulating through the news and internet, do the biased even matter or do they play a critical role in the information given to the individuals. As stated above, about less than one third of citizens who seek out these outlets for their news actually trust the information they are given. With breaking news, there is competition between the outlets who can get the latest accurate update and get it out to the people first. During the aftermath, there are claims against all politically driven companies, that the opposing gave fake or inaccurate news about the event. For example, while the shooter was still unknown, the breaking news of Samir Al-Hajeed being identified as the shooter circulated throughout the media. This lead to news outlets claiming the shooter was an Islam convert, when actuality the shooter, Stephen Paddock, was not affiliated with any religion and has no ties to the Islamic religion. Another false story that was circulating during the current updates of the shooting was that Marilou Danely warned a security guard that everyone was going to die. When the lead was further pursued and Danely was interviewed, the story was deemed untrue. These circulations of false information can be found with all major current events. While these may seem harmless in the grand scheme of things, what about the individuals who follow the news story just as it happens, but never follows up with the after-math. What if the viewer has limited access to digital news outlets, found the article claiming the gunman was Samir Al-Hajeed and they deemed the Las Vegas shooting as a terrorist attack, but didn’t have any access to any digital updates until far after the aftermath of the shooting. The availability of fast breaking news is an important part in the advancement of informing the American people. In a quick search or look at any social media, you are able to be informed, but we must not get caught up in the event and believe anything and everything we see. People must be wary of the biased and possibility of the misinformation coming from these news outlets.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/06/30143308/state-of-the-news-media-report-2016-final.pdf

2. Trust and accuracy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/02/a-running-list-of-viral-hoaxes-and-misinformation-about-the-las-vegas-shooting/?utm_term=.04ae164d74ed

7 Responses to "Media’s Role in Current Events"

Matthew Lidz says:

October 26, 2017 at 12:08 pm

You touch upon an inherent contradiction involving the media and breaking news. As consumers, we demand that reporters are quickly on location when breaking news occurs. News organizations are also in a race with each other to see who can report the information of what actually happened first. In the race for ratings, editorial standards will sometimes be loosened. This is more of a problem with cable TV compared to newspapers since it takes longer for an article to be written compared to a reporter going live on the air. That push and pull dynamic between accuracy and speed causes the media to make mistakes with their reporting. When CNN erroneously reported the arrest of the Boston Marathon bombers a few years ago, it was driven by the prestige and accolades that would come with landing such as big scoop as a CNN exclusive. As social media becomes more influential in our lives, major media sources like CNN have a responsibility to report breaking news accurately to prevent the further spread of misinformation and panic.
Kendall Crispin says:

October 26, 2017 at 2:04 pm

I think that a lot of what you said was very accurate. It is nice to have a way to quickly spread news. It is sad that newspapers are losing revenue due to this, but it is the same as the the number of print books lessening during the emergence of e-books. Technology is going to change no matter if we want it to or not. I’m not surprised that so many Americans don’t trust the news. Many people raised their hands in class saying that they thought the news was biased in class. Although that is not proven, it can be shown through framing. As Omar said in his blog post, Trump visiting Texas was covered very different by Fox than CNN. This causes an even bigger distrust in media. The growing problem of fake news is very prevalent. People even use the term as a joke. It is scary that it can affect the whole way we view a story or a person. It is sad that we can’t trust our media to simply be accurate in what they are putting out and present us with the facts, because they are so focused on making money, and less focused on being truthful.
Christopher Barry says:

October 28, 2017 at 10:30 am

You provide a very interesting and valuable perspective on the media and the competition for breaking news. While this competition sacrifices journalistic integrity, and may be difficult to quell, there is a hidden benefit: the fact that there is competition. Competition means that there a wide variety of sources and places to gather information. Each source tries to present the most accurate information, even under the pressure of trying to be the first to break news. By reading as many sources as possible, especially for very big and significant (breaking) news story like Los Vegas, a compilation of accounts can give the best understanding to what happened. The problem that arises from this solution, however, is that it requires everyone to have time and access to these new sources and not everyone does, making fake news easier to spread. As we face this rise in fake news, we must become more aware and attempt to have a greater variety to different (ideally neutral) new sources. They are out there. There are a large amount of TV networks and their websites to get news from and there are a large number of newspapers to read, both online and in print. A conscience effort must be put in or it will affect how our democracy run since the readily supply of quality information is essential to an efficient and well working democracy.
Brittney Morris says:

October 28, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Lauren, you raised several very good points about the problems we currently face with breaking news. While it is important to be aware of tragic events as soon as they happen, or as they are happening; I think it is detrimental to give out false information. Reporters act like vultures and chase down any lead they get before they verify the information. While I understand that news outlets are for profit, providing people with false information not only creates bias, but further enhances stereotypes, such as the Las Vegas shooter being Muslim. It is dangerous for news to be seemingly unchecked. They should be required to verify the information before they release details, especially in an ongoing investigation. It is sad only a small percentage trust the news. The news outlets are supposed to be giving accurate information to their viewers; however, the integrity of those news sites seems to be compromised, since every few people actually believe what they are hearing. This is particularly true with framing and spinning news stories to meet the needs of the news outlets. People are only getting part of the story, rather than the whole story they deserve to hear. People are busy, they do not have the time to search through several different news sources to get the full story, therefore they can either choose to be ill-informed or only partially informed. I am unsure if there is a solution to this issue, I think as long as the news is for profit there will always be mis or a lack of information. This has become the sad truth we have to live with.
Alyssa Holt says:

October 29, 2017 at 1:45 pm

I agree with your points about the dangers of technological advances on news and its credibility; however, I think it is also important to remember the benefits. You mention the immediacy that social media and smart phones have made crucial in journalism and while this has resulted in false updates being released and quickly spread, it has also helped in recent tragedies. During the recent hurricanes, people were able to help reporters and journalists learn and report more by posting their own experiences on Facebook and other social media outlets. This not only gave people trying to learn more about the tragedies better insight, but it helped emergency responders find and assist those that needed it. While it is definitely a problem that technology has increased the ease of releasing and spreading fake news, it is important to remain skeptical of this news and not label the technology as solely harmful.
Daniel Bonaventura says:

October 29, 2017 at 6:47 pm

I agree that although news that is spread through the internet, or other forms of technology can be biased, these outlets are very important to the advancement of a more informed America. Without technology people would simply not be informed on all current issues the way they are today. Not everyone in our country is interested in, or has access to forms of mainstream media. Because of this, in a world without all of the different media outlets of today, not everyone would even be aware of atrocities or big stories that occur here and abroad. In addition, people who did not watch or read the news would have to rely on word of mouth which can hold the same or more bias as an online source. On the other hand in our world today where it seems everyone is aware of all major news whether they want to be or not, important issues are not just brought up, they are forced to be thought about and addressed by our whole country. For this reason I believe that new forms of media will continue to benefit our country.
Colby Ritten says:

October 29, 2017 at 11:17 pm

Breaking news has definitely increased over time due to the technological advancements that we have made. In our history, news was mostly spread through the newspaper and verbal interactions but thanks to television and social media, we can receive news instantly. But like you said, many people wonder whether this information is trustworthy or not. News outlets are mostly caught up in the amount of viewers they get, so they race to be the first ones to tell a story and sometimes what they say could turn out to be false. This leads a lot of people to believe that news outlets purposely give fake news but really, most of the times when a news station gets something wrong they will fix it. The people keep the news outlets in check. For example, if CNN or Fox continuously gives fake news, then we would just switch over to the other station. Both stations know that they must give credible information so in the end, when they cover an event, the information will be correct. I think “Fake news” is not as big of an issue than people think it is.

Comments are closed.