Interestingly, I was also reminded of a Sidore lecture I filmed for Plymouth State's Communication's Honor Society, LPH. It was a lecture by Dr. Gregory Samuels on promoting critical thinking through media & racial literacy in an era of fake news. As a presenter, he allegedly took the stance of an authorized and impartial figure.
Spoiler alert: he didn't.
While I had no problem with the statistics and methodology utilized in Dr. Samuels' research, I do find an irony in his criticism of many news outlets as setting a predetermined agenda by selectively covering stories that fit their point of views and selectively presenting facts that fit their beliefs, only to do the exact same things they did.
Throughout his presentation, Dr. Samuels used many examples of well-known cases of white policemen's brutality against African Americans, which effectively told his side of the story. However, not even once throughout his presentation did he make an attempt to look beyond white people's faults to find other contributing factors that lead to racial tensions in the US. Not even once did he mention how a significant portion of social unrest between Caucasians and African Americans can be attributed to how African Americans usually top the chart in committed crimes by race and ethnicity. Another big elephant in the room he was unwilling to touch was how the majority of crimes and mistreatment committed against African Americans are by OTHER African Americans. Racism is, in fact, much bigger and more complicated than any viewpoint provided by the experience of a single ethnicity. Thus, no one deserves to take an authorized stance of impartiality.
I do not, under any shape or form, wish to undermine Dr. Samuels' research or invalidate his experience as a minority living in the US. However, through this example, I want to prove a simple but often ignored point: just because a piece of information isn't considered "fake" does NOT mean it's proven impartial. As a matter of fact, I believe that no media literature can be considered impartial, and every news article carries an agenda. Coming from a country where every news outlet is controlled by the government to promote their nationalistic agenda, I personally feel that the concept of news driven by agendas is still fairly alien to the US. This is a conclusion stemming from my observation of how little an average news consumer is willing to examine the condition under which a piece of news is recorded.
Staying true to my words, I'll wear my agenda on my sleeve: I'm an anti-communist, and extreme socialism skeptic who believes in the social construction of technology. Because of my skepticism towards most things, I believe that conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term used to invalidate a group of people with a tainted reputation created by a many ill-informed individuals. I'm also a Southeast Asian food supremacist, and thinks that mac and cheese tastes disgusting.
Let me know what you guys think. Do you agree or disagree with the notion that every news article carries an agenda? Why or why not?
Agendas… It is kind of fucked up, but there is an agenda behind most media outlets. It takes a lot of willpower to be agendaless, and NOT push what you believe onto others.. And when you look at the media, there is a financial dependence that comes in to play. Are you going to tell me that you have gone to college, built your entire financial being upon a notion of journalism only to quit because the “agenda of your bosses, or owners” contradicts what you believe in, or know is fucked up? People bend their will and morals all the time, and most of the time it is because their job and well being depends on it. It takes a brave person to quit something they have invested their entire lives into based on a strong moral compass… so every news outlet holds an agenda…. But as long as we can understand that, and spot the agenda, things aren’t so bad.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, I personally believe that it's actually impossible to be agendaless. It's within human nature to seek approval from others and associate with groups/movements/campaigns that they believe in. It is, however, possible to learn not to push your beliefs on others and dismiss opposing viewpoints, which relates to the workforce conflicts you mentioned and is a major problem in today's society. Conflicts are present among everyone due to opposing agendas: boomers vs millenials, right wing vs left wing, socialists vs capitalists, conservatives vs liberals, and so on.
DeleteMost of this tension could be avoided if, like you said, people could spot the agenda presented by media outlets and not be influenced as easily. It's important to be skeptical but not dismissive, to listen and understand but not so quick to either believe or oppose. The world isn't black and white and sometimes it can be so hard to maintain a healthy balance.