BEDA Entry 14: The Media
As someone who works on a newspaper, I have learned first-hand how writers can manipulate a story to their advantage. Though my campus newspaper isn't big news or anything, I've seen how a writer's word-choices and an editor's cuts can manipulate a story to mean something outside of it original intents. In some "genres of communication" (quoting Miss Crystal), this is perfectly fine. Good creative writers edit the heck out of their stuff and their finished product is often unrecognizable when held side by side with the original. When we're claiming to report the news, however, angles should ideally be left out as much as humanly possible.
I say ideally because this isn't the case as often as we'd like. Today, I read an article behind the real story of Columbine. A decade later, it's been revealed that there wasn't really a girl who was shot for saying she believed in God. The shooters' parents weren't necessarily the neglectful people they were made out to be. This article explains it in better detail.
Initially, I was disgusted by this information. Then, I realized, that's the media, isn't it? The media is often like a giant game of telephone. One person might've been interviewed saying, "Yeah, Suzy was a good, Christian girl. It's a shame she died." Someone might have heard this interview and told it to someone else who told it to someone else and before you know it, Suzy died giving a testimony to her faith. I'm totally not saying that that's what happened, but it very well could have been. With hot topics, news can easily be stretched and manipulated.
I also read an article today about students that use Facebook. The article stated that Facebook use was linked to lower college GPAs. However, after a closer read, the article states that this was based on only one pilot survey at one university. Reliable information, don't you think?
What do you guys think about all this? I'd like to know.
I say ideally because this isn't the case as often as we'd like. Today, I read an article behind the real story of Columbine. A decade later, it's been revealed that there wasn't really a girl who was shot for saying she believed in God. The shooters' parents weren't necessarily the neglectful people they were made out to be. This article explains it in better detail.
Initially, I was disgusted by this information. Then, I realized, that's the media, isn't it? The media is often like a giant game of telephone. One person might've been interviewed saying, "Yeah, Suzy was a good, Christian girl. It's a shame she died." Someone might have heard this interview and told it to someone else who told it to someone else and before you know it, Suzy died giving a testimony to her faith. I'm totally not saying that that's what happened, but it very well could have been. With hot topics, news can easily be stretched and manipulated.
I also read an article today about students that use Facebook. The article stated that Facebook use was linked to lower college GPAs. However, after a closer read, the article states that this was based on only one pilot survey at one university. Reliable information, don't you think?
What do you guys think about all this? I'd like to know.