When Americans watch the news, most of them do not just turn to any news report; they turn to the newscast which would satisfy their desire- the desire to hear what they want to hear. For example, most Republicans would turn to Fox news to get their daily dose of stories while college students would probably turn to the Daily Show, the Colbert Report or CNN to get their information. I, as college student and a Democrat, refuse to watch Fox news because their stories do not fit my taste nor does it fit my desire to hear to the "real, unbiased stories". I remember I watched Fox news for five minutes and I had to immediately grab the remote and switch to the CNN channel. Why? Because their polls and statistics are retarded. As a statistics student, let me tell you that no one should rely on polls, period. It's just something you should not believe, like Scientology. (Sorry if I offended any Scientologists.) Why? Because you can manipulate the data whichever way that fits your belief, the larger group of people = the better it fits your theory. Second, they never tell you how the data is extrapolated other than telling you that it's from a group of _____ (number) of people. These two things automatically make the data unreliable. So when Fox news asked a group of 350 people, "Who won last Friday's debate?" or "Do you think Black voters play a decisive role in Obama's candidacy?" one shouldn't even bother to look at the results because it does not reflect what people think, only what Fox news thinks because Fox probably manipulated the data to influence their audience. However, when the audience sees the results of the poll, the audience will believe that is the truth and probably jump onto the bandwagon and follow the "what others believe in". Sure, intellectuals like us would think this is biased and would never jump the bandwagon immediately and condemn its biased reports/ polls. But then again, if we do not believe in the polls to begin with, why would people do it? why would people even want to see the result? The answer is that people believe that the polls produce "unbiased" results and therefore more news channels have these ridiculous surveys - only to satisfy our hunger, our hunger for the things we want to hear. Indeed, the media is biased, however, the viewers only want to hear the things they want to hear and media is just adjusting itself to serve the need of the audience.
I agree with Paris' idea that as audience, we should be exposed to the same stories from multiple sources, however, the question is, do we want to hear them from multiple sources?
And... here are the pictures of my failed attempts in the intersection of Covell and Sycamore:
first attempt:
second attempt:
third attempt:
fourth attempt:
and because of the strong wind blowing against my face, I gave up.
And for the previous blog regarding my trip back to Davis from the Bay... Here's the picture I took with my phone:
6 comments:
Okay, I must stand up for what I really wrote. I know this post is not detailed enough. However, I do not agree what you wrote. In Ripley's Believe It or Not, first off, the title already has the point- believe it or not. It's aim is not to influence people to believe, but to show the abnormal things that we don't see in our everyday lives. If you are curious about the world, then watch it. News media, on the other hand, is trying to influence the audience in some way. Why? Well, take Fox News, for example, it is funded by the Republicans, so it's a no brainer that its aim is to try to influence people. I am not saying that you cannot watch it because it does not fit your taste; I am making a different point: do you want to watch something you do not believe in? Basically, it's the difference between want and need. If you need to know the difference amongst newscasts, and would not be influenced by different newscasts, then watch it. If you want to watch something that fits your taste, then you should watch something that fits your taste, not something that oppose your ideologies. In America, most people must watch a certain newscast because they want to hear the things they want to hear, or else, why must people need to watch only CNN, or ABC News, or Fox News? If we do not have a certain taste, then we can just flip to any newscast and watch the news. The fact is that that is not true in America; people have affiliations and so does newscast. Maybe I should have made the point a little more clear- this post only applies to news media, not just media in general.
I accidentally deleted amiee's comments. She pretty much disagree what I wrote because there are those who seek the truth even though the truth hurts and used an example from Ripley's Believe It nor Not. She added the the fact people are curious about our surroundings so people do not watch TV only because it fits our taste, but because it satisfy our hunger for the truth.
I think a further point that I would make is that all informational relays are forms of media; and all media needs to be seen in terms of mediation. 'Truth' and 'media' are *never* compatible or one in the same, because when we are dealing with media (and we always are), we are drawn into the work of taking perspectives, zooming in our out, framing things, and yet being made to feel like disinterested viewers. The audience and media forms go hand in hand: certain modes of mediation call on us to act in certain ways according to accepted 'audience' codes. Again, I want to stress the slipperiness of this term 'truth'—I don't think that this concept (truth) helps us think about media, because it suggests that there is a real truth somewhere out there that media can either give us access to or distract us from. But this idea of truth is extemporaneous. In fact, while certainly things do happen in the world, the world can never pause and secure the 'truths' of things—rather, the world keeps going and the best we can do is stay involved in the endless work of interpretation. And whenever someone says the word "truth," we should always know that there is ideology and interest attached. Truth is not a pure concept—it, too, is mediated.
Our question should be this: How can we talk about the media and the audience with no reference to 'truth'—this demands more careful attention to the details of what people actually say and the interpretive contexts around discourse.
Carol, I like how you end with your photos, as if to subtly remind your reader that every 'picture' has several versions, or involves several ways of seeing. And the final shot of the exploded car reminds us to pay attention to the things closest to us!
Can you re-post Aimee's comment, or is it permanently deleted?
Post a Comment