Monday, April 16, 2007
Mass Media (print) - Creative Untruths
What have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real? (Date of source : 6th april 2003)With eloquence and convincing words, the influential media often and has the rights to present what is perceived, rather that what is real to the audience, especially when they face pressure from the government or political parties. This is especially prevalent in countries like U.S. where freedom of speech and expression are allowed, though the media still faces internal pressure.
The media sides the government in a way that they only portray the positive side of them and tone down the seriousness of their mistakes. In other words, the media either cover up government's faults or beautify their serious mistakes, they seldom publish the fact, as far as I've inferred from the article.
The article " Spilling blood with oil in Iraq" clearly proves that the entrance of U.S. army is actually an ill-will in disguise; Iraqis have been 'traumatised','crippled' and 'killed' in the 12 years of time during U.S.'s "invasion".
The initiation of war by U.S. was claimed to be a righteous one as they convinced some others of the existance of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the urgent need to search and destroy them. However, has any form of media report about the confirmed existance of weapons so far?
Maybe most possibly, what the dominant U.S. did not reveal is their loss of pride due to the 911 terrorists attack and it is their attempt to take revenge and show their dominance.
With an excuse to restore peace after the U.S.-initiated war, U.S. president called for a surge of army to Iraq earlier this year, which was deemed to be unnecesary. However, without even the media's report, rationals will understand that they are actually eyeing on the rich natural resources like oil in Iraq.
This is also an obvious hint that the media has been under the U.S.'s influence on publicising what should be published. There are certainly a lot of unrevealed news that we do not know.
Perhaps to many, the media's looking down on the audience's ability to differentiate between truths and untruths and thus it is a more bias source. But contrastingly, in this particular case, the daring scriptwriter uses our ability to read between the lines, well enough to convey certain facts in an indirect manner. With phrases like 'creative untruths' and 'obliging media', readers can most possibly guess what the writer is trying to say - the media lies too.
Contradictingly, if we the audience do not believe the media, what are the reasons that make us believe in this writer?
Thinking of it in another way, the media is a source of information and a way to attain more knowledge on a wide array of things happening around the world. It is through the media that we acquire first hand information, don't you agree? If this is not so, how would we get to know about 911 and the 2004 tsunami so immediately? Yes indeed, the media is very resourceful and influential.
All in all, it is up to individuals' views on whether to trust this source of information wholeheartedly. After all, being an influential source of medium to get information, audiences will at least carry a weak belief that the media is truthful to what they present.
It is essential that we the audience of the media are willing to expose ourselves to various sources of information to get a more complete scope of what is really happening.
*7.02pm*
Dreamt by Shurlene min at
