Do you think the media has the responsibility to relate all information to the public or are there certain things that should remain censured? This is just something I’ve been contemplating with the recent coverage of the VT killings and Cho Seung-Hui, just curious to see what others believe.
2007-04-20 13:43:59 · 12 answers · asked by vee_starzz 1 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
it's sad when we are lead to believe, even encouraged, to confuse MEDIA and NEWS to mean the same thing.
When the NEWS puts something like the video of the VA killer on TV it's not done for any newsworthy purpose, only for the sensationalism it will generate. NBC will air anything, without regard for the public. I suppose you can turn it off, but when you turn on the news and this plays it's pretty much too late.
the NEWS, no longer presents the news. it's one shocking story after another and the one with the most blood and horror is the winner. If there isn't any horrific news in Los Angeles (where I live) then they tell us about the death rate in Chicago. If no one there was dismembered or set on fire or raped with a broomhandle by the police they tell us about the 80 people who plunged to their death in Bopal, or covered in an avalance in some other unpronouncible country.
I can tell you how many people were killed in Iraq, but can't tell you what happened in my city. Not because I'm not interested, but because the news doesn't cover it. How many murders were there in Los Angeles county last month?
As crass as it sounds, I'm not going to get shot at in Virginia. Mainly because I'm not IN Virginia. I'm going to get shot at on the freeway in LA.
Why is it that the only news worth reporting is BAD news?Why isn't good news, news?
2007-04-20 13:59:58 · answer #1 · answered by Sarge1572 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that there is a fine line between honesty in Journalism and panicing the general populas.. and to be honest I'm not so sure where it is, I guess if it will help keep people safe and there is some action they can take on a danger it should be fully reported but if there is no action that can be changed by the general public, or a panic would hamper efforts to make a situation safer then it should only be the bare facts reported, untill the crisis is over then, tell the full story. Lets face it, everybody knows: A person is smart. People are stupid. Group minds are rairly very intelegent. Also I think that celeberity's personal problems are not news werthy and also are an invasion of their privacy, unless they volenteer the information. I mean if you are going through tuff times the last thing you want is to have to answer questions from everyone you know, and strangers about it before you've had the time to process it yourself? I know when bad things happen in my life I prefer to be able to choose who knows what's going on with me untill i can start to get over it, when i have the chance. I'd like to see famous people offered the same chance.
2007-04-20 20:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by Saytar Rai 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The media, if it were only one, would show some sort of restraint but, because of perceived competition, it will always be a matter of who is first with the gossip. My main complaint is that they do not know how to give it a break. They are making the story as they go with none stop guessing by experts on several channels around the clock. They can not wait for the facts. They are trying to beat the police and the courts to a decision.
2007-04-20 20:55:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no i don't think they should. we think that the world is so much worse then it was even just 10 years ago. but I really believe it is because we he about the things that are happening in the world. whereas there was a time when you would hear about things only in your area. People tend to have the misconception that because someone lost their mind and shot up their campus it will happen every where. well the media gives the idiots across the country the idea to do it and then you have a few copy cats in the days following. No the media should not report all to us.
2007-04-20 20:50:16 · answer #4 · answered by Pandora 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they should tell us but in the appropriate forum. The 6 o'clock news may not be appropriate for everything but all news outlets have websites.
The latest debacle being a prime example.
Why not show one still picture and just tell everyone if YOU want to see or hear more go on-line.
That way nobody is traumatized yet people can still get the information if they feel they want it .
2007-04-20 21:24:48 · answer #5 · answered by lightwriter 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not - why have a media that only tells half-truths?
(yes, I know... we already do...)
but the only place I would make an exception is when the information is highly sensitive to a local police investigation...
But I wanna know everything the FBI and CIA are up to... you can't trust those folks anymore....
2007-04-20 21:17:45 · answer #6 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no newspapers weren't allowed to publish times and dates of navel ship departures during the war....the media should use discretion and NBC should have known that releasing Cho's pictures etc encouraged copycats. their explanation that the release was to give insight into his mental makeup was just a bunch of $#8&!!!!
2007-04-20 20:50:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
certain things should most definately remain censored. don't forget that there are a lot of youngsters watching news innocently viewing for current events. not to be flashed by images of ruthless violence. i believe that media should consider all who would be watching it before actually letting peeps watch it
2007-04-20 20:48:20 · answer #8 · answered by ...♥... 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They might as well tell the public. The news will get to them one way or another.
2007-04-20 20:51:58 · answer #9 · answered by Williamstown 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sure that the media does not tell us everything. I think that the media should report all news
2007-04-20 21:16:28 · answer #10 · answered by Carole D 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋