Register now or log in to join your professional community.
That would partially depend on the country, most countries strive to be truthful, but truth can be in the 'eye of the beholder'
Certain countries use the media as propoganda
Having worked with a number of large media organisations, I have deduced that generally media organisations strive to create truthful content within the time-frame that reporters and producers are given.
This however, is a task that is very difficult to complete when there is a breaking news story and various factors that are creating time pressure in producing fair and accurate content.
In my opinion truth is a subjective matter, where one side may perceive one thing to be true the other may not, but good media organisations try to present both sides to a story thus allowing the audience to deduce whether or not this is truthful content or not. A balanced news story is worth more than a 'truthful' story.
They provide a truth which is subjective to the opinion of the network. Largely dominated by their shareholders opinion. Certain news worthy items would not be aired due to the lact of 'relevance'
eg. in America a capitalist country comments on finance would be following the view of capitalist policy. It would follow a 'free market' angle and would not have socialist bias.
eg. War coverage for instance will be favouring the side of the networks opinion.
CNN follows the Syrian disposed regime taher than the rebel group.
In short truth is not clear.
it's must be truthfull for the goodness of the society
The honesty factor varies from country to country, in the USA right now we have opposition media, and many are foling the population with false claims and inuendos, As a teacher for 12 years at the college level, I can only give the advice to question everything and don't believe anything until you research it and find complimenting examples to justify what you have seen or read!
well , there is a bit of both , but the problem is that the common people do nt reconize them from each other.
so a% fake can make all the Fake no one belives both.
Well, It's complicated .. most of news networks are not neutral . of course when they provide the events .. the picture couldn't lie anyway.. but allmost they provide analysis, and comments insiders as well.. and those are biased twords the interests of the owners of the media network.
Every media outlet has its own agendas and policies. Which, according to them, they choose what type of news they want to spread.
if we want to know the truly percentage of the news that we see everyday in televisions and newspapers it will be 20% true and 80% fake combines from lies and adding suspense and other spices that can catch attention of the audions everywhere
Various media outlets do not conform to the same standards and they portray the events according to their specific positions, affiliations, styles and so on. This was never different, anywhere. The so much publicized "fake news" description/accusation of the media is not some new, bravely announced discovery of the moral ones, but the latest, most brazen self-serving finger-pointing done by those lacking the political capital or credit that seemed to be necessary in order to get significant attention from the public. There should be no general descriptions of any particular media in terms of truthful or untruthful, but rather an understanding that they all are both, as a function of often complex interests. They are, often enough, contradicting themselves too - just take Fox and their attitude towards the current president of the United States as an example: there you have Sean Hannity and Shepard Smith - see how different their views can be, within the same network.
Ultimately, the media are an integral part of a larger political and business environment, and through these, in most if not all cases, are a part of the social environment that "ordinary people" so readily perceive in diverse ways and comment on through social media available to them to express views, thus contributing themselves to the choices of attitude made by the media controlled by a vast and complex mechanism of interests, that are both interconnected and overlapping.
This depends on WHICH Media to which you are referring. In the USA there are several channels that focus on their particular SPIN, as there are in Russia, for two examples. They may report the basics truthfully but then they will spin the conversation towards the dictator in charge or to the left or to the right, depending on what is the station's main "slant".
I think it is possible that there was a lot more truth in media many decades ago. But the basics are still the same.
For example, if an average person gets killed it is a murder. If a famous person gets killed, it is an assassination. If a black kid gets shot it is a "gang related crime" even without evidence of that and when a white kid gets shot it is a "tragedy". When a black kid gets killed by a cop it is an "preventative measure, (he might have been armed)" and when a white kid gets killed by a cop it is an "accidental shooting" (even though that does not happen nearly as often!). If a white kid shoots someone, it is assumed he is crazy, had a bad home life or was depressed. If a black kid shoots someone they say it was because he was in a gang or a criminal or worse yet, it was the "gangster rap music" that influenced him!
If a white person shoots up a public place or bombs a building, the person is called a "shooter" or a "bomber". If someone of Middle Eastern descent or heritage or of Islamic faith commits those same acts, then those same acts are called "acts of terrorism". Even though ALL of the above are indeed terrorizing for the people involved.
To get off topic for just a moment, I would like to mention that no one is "Middle Eastern". There is no country called the Middle East. Middle to what, exactly? East of where? That is an arbitrary term to randomly define a region and was first proposed, I believe, by Henry Kissinger, to label those of Islamic Faith as a means to control these greatly diverse countries.
Back to my main point about the words that journalists now use to describe similar events, I would like to ask, "Why the difference?" Why are some people more important than others? If there is a school shooting the kids are bullied by the press and they are treated as idiots when they call for gun control. But when a theater full of adults or a country music convention gets shot up, the adults are called victims and everyone feels sorry for them. Even still, the conversation is ALWAYS diverted AWAY from gun control. Because in the USA, we have a "right to bear arms," and thusly, we will always "bear" the brunt of those arms, at the hands of other, mentally unstable people.
While the basic story is told, the spin that follows is not always accurate and is always in favor of adults, men, white people and Christians in the USA. I would not call this untruthful, but I definitely call it unfair and unjust.
Do you need help in adding the right keywords to your CV? Let our CV writing experts help you.