Ethics assignment 9: RTNDA and Objectivity
* Why do these websites have different approaches to, and attitudes about, the news that they represent, considering that they ascribe to the same code of ethics?
These websites have different approaches and attitudes towards the same subject matter because there are innumerable ways to present, or "frame" a story. The same code of ethics simply insures that both approaches to the same news must be factually accurate. But, the semantics of words used in the article, and the overall ton eof the article have a dramatic effect on the reader. In addition, much can be suggested without actually being stated. Even the headline of the article itself an be either positive or negative, or implicate a certain group. The attitude towards the subject matter is a direct reflection of the authors feelings on the subject--sometimes veiled better than others.
For instance, when the riots in France were occuring last month, Democracy Now! reported "Urban Unrest Escalates in France as Riots Continue", while Foxnews reported "Muslim Rioting in France". Both of these titles are technically correct, while one attempts to draw attention to the fact that the rioters were Muslim. The religion of the rioters as a factor in their "Urban Unrest" is implied by one source, but not the other. These implications are carefully worded so as to be true, but still express the opinions of the publishers. Another example of conflicting semantics is the fact that an article was published indicating that some accomplishments of the war in Iraq had been exagerated. One news source published the story without any followup about what the white house was doing to ensure that those exagerations were not reported as fact, while the other ran an article about how president Bush was "Troubled" by the reports, while not reporting on the exagherated documents themselves.
These approaches have a dramatic effect on their audiences. Those who are on the ends of the political spectrum tend to feel re-enforced by their corresponding pundits. However, if the news were truly "fair and balanced", it wouldn't matter which source one got their news from. In actuality, people tend to believe the stories that support their pre-existing beliefs and reject those that contradict them. The more obviously biased a news story is, the less effictive it is at actually getting news across, and is subject to labels of radicalism.
* What are some possible reactions from different kinds of audience (social class, political affiliation, ethnicity, gender, etc.). If differing reactions to these sites occur, what implications does this have to the ethic of impartiality, as stated in the code?
As ethnic, economic, gender, political, and social class divisions divide our cultural tendencies, so do they affect our receptiveness to news. The ethic of impartiality is, in effect, impossible to obtain. Even an article published by someone who truly has no opinion on a matter will at least be interpreted as having one. This branding of "liberal" or "conservative" with respect to a news source then follows the publishing company, and not only the author.
* To what extent is this code of ethics viable in an electronic medium, especially one that is driven, in part, by advertising?
This code of ethics can lose its validity in electronic media because advertising agencies, pundits, political commentators, and mouthy bloggers are not subject to such codes. Aside from flagrant false advertising, advertisement has a large amount of freedom in the message it sends out. In fact, advertisements are notoriously misleading. The only way a degree integrity can be maintained is if the code is upheld by the major news sources, and that they keep attempting to present a fair and balanced view.
These websites have different approaches and attitudes towards the same subject matter because there are innumerable ways to present, or "frame" a story. The same code of ethics simply insures that both approaches to the same news must be factually accurate. But, the semantics of words used in the article, and the overall ton eof the article have a dramatic effect on the reader. In addition, much can be suggested without actually being stated. Even the headline of the article itself an be either positive or negative, or implicate a certain group. The attitude towards the subject matter is a direct reflection of the authors feelings on the subject--sometimes veiled better than others.
For instance, when the riots in France were occuring last month, Democracy Now! reported "Urban Unrest Escalates in France as Riots Continue", while Foxnews reported "Muslim Rioting in France". Both of these titles are technically correct, while one attempts to draw attention to the fact that the rioters were Muslim. The religion of the rioters as a factor in their "Urban Unrest" is implied by one source, but not the other. These implications are carefully worded so as to be true, but still express the opinions of the publishers. Another example of conflicting semantics is the fact that an article was published indicating that some accomplishments of the war in Iraq had been exagerated. One news source published the story without any followup about what the white house was doing to ensure that those exagerations were not reported as fact, while the other ran an article about how president Bush was "Troubled" by the reports, while not reporting on the exagherated documents themselves.
These approaches have a dramatic effect on their audiences. Those who are on the ends of the political spectrum tend to feel re-enforced by their corresponding pundits. However, if the news were truly "fair and balanced", it wouldn't matter which source one got their news from. In actuality, people tend to believe the stories that support their pre-existing beliefs and reject those that contradict them. The more obviously biased a news story is, the less effictive it is at actually getting news across, and is subject to labels of radicalism.
* What are some possible reactions from different kinds of audience (social class, political affiliation, ethnicity, gender, etc.). If differing reactions to these sites occur, what implications does this have to the ethic of impartiality, as stated in the code?
As ethnic, economic, gender, political, and social class divisions divide our cultural tendencies, so do they affect our receptiveness to news. The ethic of impartiality is, in effect, impossible to obtain. Even an article published by someone who truly has no opinion on a matter will at least be interpreted as having one. This branding of "liberal" or "conservative" with respect to a news source then follows the publishing company, and not only the author.
* To what extent is this code of ethics viable in an electronic medium, especially one that is driven, in part, by advertising?
This code of ethics can lose its validity in electronic media because advertising agencies, pundits, political commentators, and mouthy bloggers are not subject to such codes. Aside from flagrant false advertising, advertisement has a large amount of freedom in the message it sends out. In fact, advertisements are notoriously misleading. The only way a degree integrity can be maintained is if the code is upheld by the major news sources, and that they keep attempting to present a fair and balanced view.
posted by Aureliano at 2:01 AM
0 comments
