Week 1 - Where is my Reality?

This week in MDA, the class discussed news and how it is delivered to us. The world is a large an active environment, and in these times, we rely on others, meaning the journalists and broadcasters to mediate the events of the world to us, on a daily basis. There is always something happening in the world and everyday we tune in/log on to our media source, to find the latest reports on those activities and keep us up to date with the latest news events in the world.

But as we discussed, these news stories are not always as they seem. Yes, the latest worldwide events are broadcast to us and we (I use we and us to signify the public) discover the latest riots happening in which third world country, the latest sporting hero, or another tax/levy being introduced and cuts being made. Yes the news is depressing, but that's a media broadcasters/journalists job, and by reporting these local or worldwide events, they are completing their jobs... But to what extent are these "stories" believable?

Are these stories exactly to the truth? Perhaps in some cases. Or are they in a way, slightly fabricated? But just enough to invoke a sense of personally opinion and bias? I'm not saying that a story has been completely manufactured for the broadcasters benefit, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of certain "Hot" topic media subjects, and the style that they are presented to a common member of the public. For example, the U.S and their reports on terrorism.

This is an area of sensitivity in the United States, for people fear that their lives and their freedom is at stake to the hands of terrorist in the middle east. The so called al-qaeda group who claim to carry out militant attacks in countries all over the world. This is a big issue, without a doubt, but the way it is portrayed in the media then filtered down to the public, would lead you to believe that along the lines, this (story) has been manipulated. What I mean is, the facts of the news report may be there, but it is the style in how it is delivered to the public that alters their opinion on the matter.

The media are in full control of this, they choose the wording and the format to broadcast a sensitive story such as a terrorist group. The way I see it, its like a good guy versus bad guy narrative structure. The American media portrays it as, we (the good guys) are fighting to protect your freedom again the terrorists (bad guys), so in this fashion, they are deemed to be almost brainwashing american citizens. A "fear the reaper" mindset.

This is a total case of agenda setting on the liberal media's part. There is evidence of these types of reports on middle eastern activity, in an example we seen in class, 2 papers reported on the same incident, but in complete different manner to each other, one more scare mongering than the other.

In no way is this broadcasters own fault, its a two horse race. I'm sure that at some stage in time, the government has had something to say about the delivery methods of sensitive issues such as, the war on terror. There is always a higher power at hand when it comes to matters of media bias. Corporations have massive, undue influence in what the media output to the public, its an image thing. Money makes the world go around.

There is media everywhere, there will always be a story to be covered, and as mentioned in class, the more coverage there is, the more saturated the media becomes. It gets increasingly difficult, because the news events are changing ever so quickly, and the more activity there, the harder it becomes to distinguish between reality and what is really being shown to us (a re-presentation), the lines become blurred. It is up to us to take a step back and look at the stories, to divide real world experiences and media simulations of events.

James.