Rose Rules the World

After the recent weeks' classes I have been paying much closer attention to the craft behind journalism writing. And the more the subsurface is uncovered, the more jaded I seem to be with news media in general.

Now I am not so naive as to believe that news sources are ever completely objective and unbiased. And I'm not just talking about the obvious political propaganda that regularly comes from certain slanted sources. Bias comes from everywhere. It leeches up through the very words themselves regardless of even the best intentioned authors. It is manifest in the tone of the writing; the sensationalist headlines or the drab underemphasis; the depth of the details and even the physical placement of the article itself. Even the decision to cover a story rather than not automatically establishes a bias that this information is newsworthy, so pay attention.

This is an unavoidable effect (and affect) of our human nature. We approach the world with a set of beliefs and expectations that shapes our experience of the world and our reactions to it. Therefore it is expected that these same rules apply for those humans who make up the news media.

But, amidst all the surreptitious, swaying spin, what interests me most is the reconciliation a journalist (and particularly an editor) must make between being simultaneously a news source and a business.

I guess this comes down to a philosophical issue over what you consider the function of the news media to be. We generally have this notion when we are young that journalists strive only to report the news. To give information to the masses and to give it honestly and truthfully. But slowly we learn that newspapers and TV stations are businesses just like any other retailer or service provider. And what a business wants more than anything else, is more business.

I don't want to give the impression that I think that the dollar drives every key stroke on the typewriter; but capturing and maintaining an audience (and subsequently $$$) is undoubtedly the overarching and ubiquitous goal which shapes and molds the product that we consume. Now this in itself is not a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just the popular thing. News sources, just like any other money-making entity in our capitalist economy, tend to give us what we want (or at least what we want to buy).

Tia York touched a little bit on this theme when she spoke to our class. What I found most interesting was her reference to Rose, the quintessential target audience. Rose is an amalgam of all the most important (read: spend happy) demographics. Rose spends the most money so we want to make sure first and foremost that we give Rose what she wants, and that we do not alienate her. Is this a story Rose would like? Where would Rose want this story to be? What advertisements does Rose like? What pictures would Rose like to see? And (like we asked during the ethical dilemmas exercise on Tuesday) what images does Rose not want to see? These are all questions that are seriously considered before any newspaper or broadcast is completed. In this way we can see that our news stations are not always a shining beacon of truth, but more a practice in public pandering.

This all sounds a bit pessimistic, but it is not. It is simply a reality of our world. I read and watch the news routinely and trust its validity. But the lesson I have learned and want to convey, is that we must approach our news with an open, but not a gullible mind. We should verify through corroboration and diversify our exposure to news. And most of all, we should never be under the delusion that what we hear, see or read is an infallible, objective or complete representation of absolute truth, these simply do not exist.