Media Panick: Convenience vs. Timeliness

As I'm sure we've all heard, there has at last been a case of Ebola diagnosed in the US. Of course the media is having a field day with this information the moment it is released. As soon as someone, who traveled here from Africa, comes our way are we now expected to run away from them?

While this disease is terrifying in its own way, we must continue our daily lives and do everything we can to help those affected by it. However, does that mean we should read about it every second of the day, start wearing gloves to work and avoid touching anyone in an elevator? CNN released this report earlier today, Oct. 5, 2014 to announce the condition of the man diagnosed. Only now that this one patient has gone into critical condition with a virus that has over a 50% fatality rate, must the US consider raising the level of security at the airports. Not before we have had a diagnosis, and certainly not when the problem first began and other countries decided to up their airport staff and increase watch lists, oh no, we needed to wait.

Every time there is an even such as this, the media enjoys publishing hourly updates and breaking news titles to enhance the terror struck into their readers. Every fear is another click. Every person dying in Africa means nothing until someone from the US is transported here with the virus or someone is diagnosed here with the virus. The news won't capitalize on this event unless they can really bring it home to people.

Today I googled Ebola US, out of the 25 links I got on the first page 16 of them were updated or published within the last 20 hours. Why do you believe the media is producing so much information out on this event, even though we have scientists and top doctors telling us it's not that big of a deal?

CamPAINing

Has anyone ever realized that there are specific guidelines for how to broadcast any political campaign? I sure didn’t know until getting curious how politicians begin their campaigns on the television.

According to this manual explaining all of the terms and conditions to broadcasting a campaign one of the first things is the duty to the public. They are supposed to make sure that the public are informed of any topics related to the election, including information on the parties, candidates and voting process. Yet another guideline is the duty to impartiality. This guideline is clearly blurred, and I’m sure it is an intentional moment of impaired vision.

These guidelines are supposed to keep the airing of elections and campaigns unbiased and non-discriminatory, however they don’t seem to do so.  Do you believe, based on any elections you’ve seen broadcasted, that even one of these guidelines are followed?

Please look at the link below for all of the guidelines. A few of the major ones that caught my eye were:

Guideline 2: Duty of Balance and Impartiality

Publicly owned or funded media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and not to discriminate against any political party or candidate. 

Guideline 8: News Coverage

Publicly owned or funded media should be particularly scrupulous in complying with their obligations of balance and impartiality in their news and current affairs reporting

 

Guideline 12: Opinion Polls and Election Projections

If a broadcaster publishes the results of an opinion poll or election projection, it should strive to report the results fairly.

 

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/guidelines_for_election_broadcasting_en.pdf

Left Winged Broadcasts

When I was young I remember using the internet very briefly and always seeing the MSN website pop up before my eyes right as I opened the browser. Had I known I could change the homepage to myspace, or whatever I was currently into at the time, I probably would have, but that isn’t my point. My point is that MSN and MSNBC have changed their entire look, or my perception of them has changed with time and maturity.

Looking at some of the major Left Winged broadcasts MSNBC was one of the first things to pop up on my search for studies and accusations.

According to the Huffington Post MSNBC was accused of biased coverage over the coverage in Israel they provided.

See story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/rula-jebreal-msnbc-palestinians-airtime_n_5606673.html

The writer was accused of covering the Israel side more than the Palestinian side of the current situation. According to an Italian and Israeli citizen a radio station broadcast very little air-time for the Palestinian side and more than substantive time for the Israeli side of the debate.

The show was later cancelled for unknown circumstances, perhaps related to this biased coverage? Do you think a major broadcast company like MSNBC should have cancelled the show after being accused of the biased reporting, if that was the reason it was cancelled?

Right Winged Broadcasts

If you’ve grown up in a Republican and/or conservative household I’m sure you’ve seen Fox News on the screen many times, perhaps all night sometimes.

According to a study done by Pew Research there are several factors that show Fox News has an extremely biased product. According to Pew’s study over 60% of Fox News watchers identify themselves as conservatives. It would be natural to lean towards what the majority of your audience prefers, however is that the point of media?

Wasn’t the purpose of a news broadcast to relay information and “news” not press political bills and voters?

To top off the uneven statistics Fox News actually costs more than other news broadcasts, but it’s audience still continues to pay the extra. Do you think that is something that would be necessary if news broadcasts weren’t biased? Although research shows Fox News outspends all of it’s competitors for various funds and running expenses wouldn’t this seem a little strange if you were asked to pay 50 cents more for the same candy bar, but this one had a red wrapper instead of a blue wrapper?

Take a look at the Pew Research Study yourself here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

What do you think about it?