An extremely anti-mainstream media news site named NaturalNews featured an article detailing how the mainstream news downplayed the nuclear crisis in Japan by lying about the severity of the crisis, even as the crisis worsened. The article titled “Mainstream media halts accurate reporting on Japan's worsening nuclear catastrophe; disinfo campaign now underway,” was one of the most clearly biased articles I have ever read. It made unbacked claims about the lies the media was supposedly feeding us. The only articles it referenced for its information were other articles on their own site or other sites like NaturalNews. They claim that the news stopped reporting problems with the nuclear plant in Japan because the company that owns the news, General Electric, also owns the nuclear power plants in the U.S. It is possible that General Electric does hold shares in both, but the rest of the story is simply ridiculous. NaturalNews fabricates a story behind assumptions and opinions then throws in half-truths to make it seem credible.
I find the way that NaturalNews attempts to display media bias is horrible. In creating fake stories about the mainstream media they become exactly what they are protesting. I have studied the way that media is linked to democracy in my Sustainable Development class. We found that most mainstream media sites have a very definite bias towards one viewpoint or another. They would often bring on highly opinionated “experts,” on a subject, but only if that expert agreed with their views. I do believe that we need news sources that can present other viewpoints in more nonbiased ways, but we do not need news sources specifically designed to prove how horrible a specific type of news is.
What the media shows to the public has become a very large part of politics. Certain news programs are known for having one bias or another and the people know this is true. The people compare what two different sources say about the same issue and then come to their own opinion. Mainstream media self balances itself fairly well because everyone knows it’s biased. Having news sites that are anti-bias creates news sites that people tend to believe present only facts, but by definition that news source is biased. People can more easily fall into following one viewpoint because they no longer realize that there are other viewpoints. In a way, shutting down mainstream media is like shutting down the different party’s voices. The media is where they get to argue and debate about the issues they must deal with. While arguing probably isn’t the best way to get things done, it does make sure that at least a few sides get heard. When you try so hard to present a different opinion about a subject you create an opinion that goes unquestioned. The core of democracy is that people do tend to question others views and opinions, by shutting down all but one opinion you are almost shutting down democracy.
I know that no one really wants to shut down democracy, but the article is so biased that it presented a totally different side to the media argument to me. It is easy to see the media debate as severely two-sided, because there are often only two sides shown, the same as many other issues. The problem is that when you think about it in that way you are doing exactly what you shouldn’t. The issue has been narrowed down and simplified into a two way split. The obvious bias of the article made me realize that we almost automatically make subjects two sided and ignore the rest. Media does need to portray more views, but we also need to check ourselves from time to time to make sure that we are still actually comparing the opinions and looking at an issue from many angles.
The article can be found at http://www.naturalnews.com/031748_mainstream_media_nuclear_catastrophe.html
No comments:
Post a Comment