Society misunderstands journalistic objectives
Campus Times
April 16, 1999
For the past few weeks, negative statements have been made in regard
to the media and its relationship to the troubles in our society.
How sad it is for a journalist like me to hear that people see the media
as a vehicle that is used to change and distort the truth.
Ironically, when someone seeks justice, his first source is the radio,
television and newspaper.
Perhaps, it is because one of the primary reasons for the media's being
is to represent those who do not have a voice in our society.
First and foremost, the idea that the media only presents yellow journalism
is erroneous in its entirety.
Simply, there are three basic objectives to journalism. They are to
inform, educate and entertain.
It is true that these three simple objectives can get hidden in today's
media of simultaneous broadcast and interactive reporting, where the development
of news happens instantly. However, the objectives remain the same.
More specifically, journalists are not out to get someone because they
are famous. Neither are they interested in bringing a presidential sex scandal
home to you at dinner time.
Rather, they are interested in informing the public of what is happening
that may affect them.
Is that not what it is really all about? What happens in my home; with
my paycheck and to my family? When it comes down to it, people are selfish,
only interested in what may affect them. Anything else is irrelevant.
And, while that may be true, journalists would be biased in representing
what affects only one group of people. For this reason, some think the media
has a slant and is not worthy.
It is similar to the criticism police officers receive. Some may be
indifferent to police officers, but they hate them when they give tickets.
But what about the time a cop actually protected a person from harm?
Was he not then thanked and praised? He was doing his job.
It is the same with journalism.
Some perceive the media as stupid and only interested in scandalizing
what is said, bringing distorted portions of what the government concedes
to 'inform.'
Perhaps, it was like that at one time long ago. However, years after
Watergate show that the media serves as the 'watchdog'; and, Big Brother
will not easily take advantage of its people.
Oftentimes, it is this type of reporting that draws the most attention.
For example: Monicagate. It was repetitive, detailed and, personally speaking,
disgusting. But, people were watching and reading and buying the sources
that gave them the latest on Monica.
In fairness, these scandals were liked by the media because they brought
ratings. But who creates ratings? The public. If people continually disapprove
something that has a slant and is incorrect, then why do they keep tuning
in?
It absolutely makes no sense that there are people who sincerely believe
the media trusts its government enough to relay the same information to
the public with no suspicion.
Moreover, it is ludicrous that the very people who criticize the media
support yellow journalism like the Enquirer and keep tuning in. If
people were not interested, it would not exist.
When it comes down to it, things will not change, but, if by chance
they do, the media-not the government, will be the first to accurately inform
the public.
Angelica Martinez, a junior journalism major, is features editor
of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at amartine@ulv.edu.
