What's Fair?

I've always been entertained by the media and how ridiculous it can be at times, but how necessary it is nonetheless. In class we discussed how the media is forced into playing the footage they do and how they must compete with other stations and although this may be true in some cases, I still blame the media for the lack of complete information they portray. To me, media, at least when it comes to mass politics, has a responsibility to inform the country. I honestly think, our country would be better off if people were more informed and were able to make educated decisions regarding our country. Although media stations do need to compete with each other, I don't think that's an adequate excuse for understanding why they can't give decent information and facts.

Something I do believe is somewhat out of the media's control which might explain why they relay stories that are rather trivial or biased at times is because of the ownership of the media sources. If GE is under some scrutiny and there was some news story that made GE look bad, it would most likely not be played on MSNBC due to the fact that it's owned by GE even if it's played on nearly every other station. There is this cycle of approval in which reporters, journalists, anchors, etc, don't do their job (that being adequate news stories) because of their ties to the companies that own the sources. These people want to maintain relationships with those in charge and this in turn affects the reporting. It leads to this sense of pressured journalism where they try to benefit or make more attractive those who are in control, and in no way would they want to alienate those who they should be loyal to.

In response to this, some have enforced standards for fair media but even this isn't necessarily fair. I don't think media should be unbiased, one because it's impossible to have objectivity with such an array of information where you can't possibly cover every story and two because things like equal time and equal credibility is just not fair. I know that sounds contradictory, but I believe that biased media is good media. Networks are known for leaning towards one side and as long as they tell the whole story from one side and the other side tells the whole story from their side, then you get what you need. I think it's up to the viewer, listener, reader not to have to necessarily do research on their own, but just to know that there are two sides to every story. I learned about "equal time" in the media and I think it's a ridiculous concept. Although it seems like a reasonable suggestion, it's not necessarily good. For instance, if talking about Global Warming, if it were according to the equal time rule, they would give someone who is informing us that the environmental crisis' we've been facing is due to global warming and then have someone counter it saying that it's an evolutionary climate change. Although there might be truth to the climate change argument, in reality, global warming is the cause, yet some will not know any better because they continue to emphasize both sides when one is clearly not right. Along with this, equality in media isn't always fair anyways. I don't remember what show is was, but it was on MSNBC and they were talking about the economy in response to the presidential candidates. They had commentators from both the Democratic and Republican side in order to expose some sort of impartiality, yet everytime the Republican spoke, he was completely cut off and interrupted. Instead of this kind of demonstration, can't they just show what the Democrat thinks about it and then let another station deal with Republicans side?