With all the confrontational talk lately about who is more or less biased or ahead or behind viewer ratings, when reporting or commenting in the news media, I ask myself who really is asking for an objective presentation of what is called 'the news of today' and why.
How long has human kind even enjoyed details or had much interest of what is going on beyond the outskirts of town on a daily basis, let alone in real time?
Gossip used to be the daily news. Nobody asked if it was biased.
- Not much has changed there apparently.
And with the advent of radio and later TV in every household, followed by 24 hour cable, satellite and online news outlets, the product that is not for free anymore seemed to have created it's own demand.
Today people just gotta have their 'news' and right now, regardless if it even affects their personal lives.
And for many news outlets, being the first who gets the story is more important than the story itself.
It doesn't matter so much what is reported and how factual, as long as it is presented in a way that appeals to the consumer, who chooses his variation and flavor of the 'news', like a product in a retail or grocery store. We can listen to all sorts of people's opinions with various backgrounds, what they consider news and where they prefer to get their product from and why.
Should all the information that is generated on a daily basis really be called news? Is it less important the next day or week?
Is the viewer really the one who decides what truly matters to him or her?
Do news, insights and background information really have to be unbiased and objective and can they ever really be, if you are paying for it and consuming it almost like a drug you can't imagine being without?
Can anyone imagine, if electricity and cell towers would black out for several days or much longer?
What important news would we really miss?
And would we then accept biased news, if that's all that was available and only for a high price?
Comments