STABILISER 28/03/22
It's one thing reporting facts, it's another when all facts reported are negative. I know it's probably good journalism to research the truth and report facts. But what would the media look like when it consistently highlights bad and negative news!
It's likely to have an adverse effect on the population. News travel and if its bad news, then sooner or later the whole population is feeling it. That's a doom and gloom outlook!
At the same time, consistently reporting good news would also expect to change the mood of the population. So when the media mixes it, are readers likely to have mood swings from one extreme to another.
The above somewhat makes the media a mood manipulator to suit whatever the occasion even if to capture an audience to generate revenues.
Generally, I have noticed that journalism tend to report in favour of political issues targeting a sector of the population. We are familiar with write ups associated with various sectors somewhat in compliance with a status quo.
Such reports may list Otara at the one extreme and Remuera at the other. It is probably out of place to reverse that order and someone could lose a job.
Then we might find media companies specialising on issues related to sectors and political affiliations. In that sense, one might tune in to a specific outlet for a dosage of his/her daily fix. And society is now polarised by media operations.
However, the layout seems to lean towards the right; a disproportional representation of issues. And we may have a population that seems to favour right looking even if they are turning left. It's a distorted reality.
Let's say on learning about the effects of Climate Change and inflation, the outlook is doom and gloom. So the mood is already harbouring stress and depression. Usually among the ordinary, folks tend to take these issues personally and blame themselves. For some the inward looking may trigger other issues and real personal problems emerge.
I know, the media claims it has a responsibility to inform and the public has a right to information. I'm saying, does the public have a choice?
In the outlook of doom and gloom, folks are already feeling down. So, I suppose it makes sense to distribute positive issues in attempt to motivate the people away from personalisation or stresses of issues. But in so doing, the media reverts to mood manipulator role.
During seasons of doom and gloom, some people may depend on pacifiers, habits and addictions such as eating, drinking or depression where escalation could trace crime and violence.
Well, I think issues may have both negative and positive connotations depending on the intended target or perception of the journalist. But this is where I would stretch the function of objectivism a bit further to include responsibility.
I think facts have both negative and positive sides and effects. I think objectivism highlights both sides for the reader to make own decision. And that's giving the issue a good bash of both sides.
Issues related to time and place are perceived by social phenomena of relative realities. Each individual has his/her own version of that reality. But that reality is materialised by what the media dictates as real.
To allow the individual to freely make up his/her own mind about reality is where objectivism could play a part. It is when politics is left out of facts reported as news. I think that part is the individual's personal choice and not a media imposition as if to indoctrinate and perpetuate in propaganda in favour of an ideology. That makes journalist reporters political entities.
So when the media brings the authority to question, is it playing a political role of the opposition? After all, that's the only role the opposition seems to be playing. And in so doing, the media rarely gives credit to the authority for a successful achievement. I guess that doesn't sell!
However, the whole media affairs make life for interviewees hell. I have watched this senior journalist bashed this female public servant into tears as he enjoyed the power ride! This reminded me of the political role of the gatekeeper media.
They seem to promote an enabling environment for likes personnel and at the same time create a hostile environment for dislikes interviewees. And people could be targeted for their political views, ethnicity or gender. It somewhat projects the business of media interviews a fearful and nervous wrecking experience. It is a deep psycho experience!
I hear the media gives it all their ugliness to bring someone into tears as a sign it has delivered an excellent interview. But so are bullies and those who play psycho power roles in their relations.
So, when the media is objective, I am enabled and empowered to make and informed decision. That means the media didn't bash or brainwash or indoctrinate me, but the information had enabled me to make up my own mind.
Whatever happened to the good old intellectual entertainment among the good things in life, it has been good for the heart and mind.