Unbiased Media Coverage? I think not...

Do not believe everything that the media tells you. The media is not an altruistic group of organisations there to provide us a service out of the kindness of their hearts. They exist to sell newspapers, they are a business, and like all businesses exist to make a profit.

The media has been known to cross ethical lines in the past, with the aim to increase sales or to influence on behalf of vested interests. Just take the 'phone hacking scandal' at News of the World for an example.

Media coverage of the current ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or general worldwide ‘Occupy’ protests provides another good example of this behaviour.

The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest is an anti-capitalist movement that claims to represent the 99% of us that isn’t part of the rich and powerful, they aim to achieve;
· Freedom from austerity.
· Bridge the gap in the increasing inequality (The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer).
· Tackle unemployment
· Combat corporate greed
· Prevent tax injustices

Though their goals are honourable and there protest peaceful. The issues has been attacked or defended in variety of different ways by a variety of different news mediums. A couple of examples will now be looked at to see how the different vendors have covered this.

Right-Wing Television Media (Mainly American)

Fox news claim ‘Occupy Wall Street’ has cost the top ten banks in America over £185bn in deposits. They claim that the OWS protests influence has caused over 700,000 of the general population to deposit their money in local credit unions on mainstream. Fox news are indirectly condemning this movement by saying that by depositing your money in local credit unions instead of the top banks is screwing over the American workers, whilst Asian and Latin American workers benefit.

This is a great example of a large media based corporation devaluing a potentially good cause for the sake of profit, biased beliefs or even possible corruption.

I personally think that trying to devalue a cause such as this by playing the so called ‘race card’ and trying to provoke some sort of nationalism within the general population, is a radical act of desperation inspired by fear, or possibly even relaying a message from a silent 3rd party investor with something to lose.


Left-Wing Television Media (Mainly American)

MSNBC allegiance appears to side with the protesters. Recent reports appear to demonise the government by showing images and video footage of apparent, excessive force used by the New York police department.

The images show an elderly woman (mid 80’s) after falling victim to this excessive force.

The video footage shows a row of protesters sitting peacefully whilst a police officer walks down their ranks spraying them in the face with pepper spray.

My question would be is how truthful are these reports? MSNBC, like Fox News, are both being ‘ethical with the truth’, as they say.

Was there more footage to the Video than MSNBC have shown us? Was there more to the story?

For more evidence of the way in which the media coverage of this issue, based on their individual vested interest, put its own spin on it.  I suggest looking at the ‘New York Post’ (Right-Wing print media) or ‘The Guardian’ (Left-Wing print media). Or Paul Krugman's views on Occupy Wall street (a real left wing commentator) and Bill O'Reilly's views on Occupy Wall Street (a right wing commentator). This should enhance the view on opinion and how different types of media view a single event.

Moving on…

I do however concede that although the ethical stance of the media is definitely a so called grey area. We as a society do not help ourselves. Our apparent desire for the latest scandal along with the rise of social media such as Facebook, Twitter etc… the speed in which the latest rumour/scandal can be spread is greatly increased, the side effect of this has (in my opinion) caused traditional media to push the boundaries in order to keep the attention focused on them.

Social Medias influence has exploded this year with the Arab spring via Twitter and Facebook. This has saw media companies hire people to actually go out into the internet and push their agenda, in forums, blogs, comment sites such as BBC and other media sites that offer comment. The internet has become just as much as a forum to influence opinion on affairs than the television radio and print media.  

Conclusion...

Are the media really satisfying our needs and desires for news with these manufactured, half truth stories or are they just compromising the integrity of their organization for the sake of sales and promotion of their own beliefs and political views.

Is social media providing a new platform in which organisations can manipulate our views to coincide with their own beliefs based on its current agenda? Could you be a victim of ‘astroturfing’? Is it ethical to promote/ devalue organisations actions based on personal feelings and political views? Do these organisations even care? Who is writing the story? Is this even true? These are the questions YOU should be thinking of every time you read a story or even feedback/ comments on social media sites. Remember there are always two sides to an argument and an organisation is always going to try to convince you that their views are the correct views.


Opinion...

Personally, I would rather read a story that argues the opinions, for and against. Whilst the author remains in an unbiased position and keeps their organisations views and opinions out of it. This in turn would allow me to decide for myself which set of values best match my own. However, the media due to advertising revenue, ownership, political pressure etc may not even be in position today to deliver the truth, even if they wanted to.