Most of them were probably never King or Queen of their prom.
Like that really matters.
Anyway, most people on the street would concur that the media has a pretty bad rap. American news organizations have long been accused of being biased, underhanded, and just downright wrong.
But is this hatred of the media unfounded?
Roy Peter Clark thinks so. In his article, The Public Bias Against the Press, he acknowledges the media's shortcomings but argues that they, in no way, deserve the reputation that's been forced upon them. He claims that people don't trust the media because that's what they've been taught to do. He says that because of sites like this and shows like this, journalism will be forever tainted.
He goes so far as to say that reporters today are some of the most well-trained, well-prepared people out there. And while it's true that it's courageous for many of these men and women to risk their lives for a story, I think the awwww factor does little for Clark's argument.
Reputations are not
Sure, journalists absolutely take a beating through television portrayals. Some of the stories they report are amazing, eye-opening, and important. Without them, we wouldn't be connected to the world around us. But I don't agree with Clark that bias is wholly on the part of the public. The public wants to believe its news, but it's finding more and more that it can't.
That's just reality.
Yes, politicians hate the media (I think with good reason). Yes, some of the "fluff" journalism and celebrity gossip is undermining the seriousness of the reporting world. Yes, journalists are made fun of in late-night TV. But you can't compare yourself to lawyers for child pornographers. That's going way too far. No one hates journalists as much as criminals. That's just an unfair bias against the public, Mr. Clark.
If you want us to give you the benefit of the doubt, try returning the favor first.
No comments:
Post a Comment