Based on the prologue video I had formed a few expectations about what I was going to be reading. I expected the origin of journalism, probably spanning from an unrecognizable beginning into something vaguely resembling what we have today. I expected a focus on personal feelings, rather than any sort of objectivity (objectivity which is arguable at best and entirely absent at worst today). Instead I found something that bears a striking resemblance to modern journalism.
Journalism comes down to the practice of spreading the news of events to people who could not be there. Much like letter writing, it serves the purpose of creating a conversation between two absent parties, the difference being that while letters are meant for two specific people, an article is meant for one person to converse with the masses. The problem most people have with journalism today is that publications and news channels a like seem to be more concerned with ratings and readership than spreading the truth. Articles are laced with bias and everything is sensationalized. Turn on any program, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they are all equally guilty in this (but some are more equal than others if you catch my drift).
One would think that going back to the origins of the thing would present us with journalism at its purest form, something untainted by modern problems with journalism. You can imagine my surprise them when the first piece of early journalism I read was a play by play account of the trial and execution of Charles I.
Now I’m not saying this shouldn’t have been news, it clearly was. The death of the monarch, the over throw of the established order, all of this was vital information that might not have reached the masses where it not for these written accounts. Yet I can’t help but wonder how much modern journalism really has strayed from its origins. Were the good old days really that good? Or are O’Reilly and the rest of the gang just keeping with what works?
Moving on to the portions written by Filmer, Milton, and Winstanley, I cannot help but wonder how wildly these pieces where really read. They seem to serve as what we might call an Op-Ed piece today, but where they as widely available as the accounts of the monarchs execution?
So while I came into this weeks reading expecting to see the glory days of journalism, when the writer reported the truth minus any sort of sensationalist garbage. I got a bit more than I bargained for. If the origins of journalism lay in the reporting of executions and revolutions, how much fault can we truly find with modern journalists doing the same? In my opinion the answer is “a whole hell of a lot,” that we should constantly strive to be better than our forbears and not languish in mediocrity and the status quo, but maybe that’s just me. What do you guys think?
I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the last part about striving to be better than those before us. However, in writing, I feel like it is unusual to find a piece of writing that has no bias or opinion in it, even if it's not supposed to. People aren't robots. It's hard to remain completely objective on a subject no matter how hard you try. I think that maybe as time goes on, people will become more aware that this happens and figure out a way to fix it? Until then, I think readers just need to know that there could always be a little bit of bias in whatever they are reading. It's easier to take an opinion with a grain of salt and still get the information you need/are interested in. I may be completely off base with what I'm saying, but I truly believe it's basically impossible to not add in a little piece of you whenever you're writing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the subject of bias in writing. I think that a person forms an opinion and it is hard to remain objective and not slant the writing to your way of thinking. However, if no one has managed to find a way to fix it by now, I doubt they ever will. It's just something that we all need to be aware of and, as Kate's said, "take an opinion with a grain of salt".
ReplyDeleteComing into this week's reading assignment, I had the complete opposite view of you. I definitely thought we would find personal opinions laced within the works about news. Opinions are always going to be writing, whether we like it or not. I like the way you put it, Kate, "people aren't robots." Very good point. I also anticipated opinions to be in the reading this week because Professor Calhoun kind of braced us for it by naming this week's prologue "News, Politics, and Self". It is pretty hard for one to be able to separate all three of those concepts. However, I would like to think that maybe in the future, we can find a way to remove our own personal take on things while reporting the news. But good journalism often makes an argument, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhile technology and journalism may have changed in the visible sense, human nature remains fairly constant. People succumb to the bias the journalists report, especially when it is on an edgy topic (execution, for example). Hopefully, an intelligent person can take it for what it is, and comb out the facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about coming into this week's assignment. Much like how Norton details the history of publishing - which started of wildly different than it is today - I thought I would see a side of journalism, a historical side, that I had never before seen. On the topic of bias in writing however, I have to agree with Kate's comment. As a creative writing major, I have been given assignments where the challenge is to write as subjectively as possible. It is no small feat, and almost impossible - every adjective carries a connotation, every verb has a meaning that could be spun to infer a writer's "true" meaning, even if that meaning doesn't exist. Bias will forever exist in writing as long as human beings, who are naturally biased (you have a favorite something don't you?), go on writing.
ReplyDeleteInteresting observations Nick! I too am troubled by the bias in our media today. I believe that lots of news goes unmentioned because it doesn't affect the American people directly, and that it is our responsibility as intelligent students to seek out information, even when it is not presented and readily available to us. Thus, if we can do it as students, than I certainly think that journalists today should also strive for more, and not follow in the traditional footsteps of their predecessors.
ReplyDelete