Hall Reaction by Andrea Pelose

Andrea Pelose
IMS 390

Hall Reading Reaction

Hall’s writing possesses an interesting parallel on contemporary journalism. She uses straight-edge, non-opinion driven writing to explore a third view of media, which looks specifically at neither the politician nor the reporter, but their relationship to one another. Articles, such as the ones we read for Wednesday, explored the trend behind media and politics that have generated interactive media studies courses in the first place.

In traditional journalism classes, we study the politician and how to report them. It is with clear, conventional guidelines to report in a manner that sets aside personal opinions and seeks only the truth based on fact. Contemporary classes, tend to fall more on technology and opinions in entertainment, than hard news in an attempt to keep younger journalists from all falling in the footsteps of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or The Onion.

As Hall’s articles bare proof, it is not this brand of parody that represents the most dangerous form of opinion, but rather the under-the-radar, seemingly, upfront journalists that have threatened the outcome of elections and issues. As Hall assessed in her discussion with O’Reilly, “media have a crush” on Barack Obama. She also points out several times in the transcript with Fox News Watch, the manner in which they favored Obama and how they may inevitably “turn on Obama to prove their independence”. The power she asserts the news as having on the minds and opinions of the American public is unfortunate. People do not have the ability to personally interact with Obama or McCain in the manner that several journalists do. Therefore it is their civic obligation to ask all the crucial questions, explore every background element, and report it under equal representation for each article unless the source producing the article is clearly formatted under opinion.

However, let’s be more realistic. Journalists will continue to be viewed by the American public as a notch in between lawyers and car mechanics on the slim scale, unless their names are Sawyer or Brokaw. This is not due to cynical or humor-driven columnists, but to the manner in which our hard-hitting journalists are spearing and spinning the news. The rating game of news corporations has led the bloody and tragic into headlines, disregarding the family members whom it may cause grief. Then of course, there is the focus on Palin’s pregnant daughter and Obama’s new family dog that has often taken precedent over issues such as their stance on foreign policy. It is a double-edged sword, the American people want to know the gossip, but then they relish the opportunity to criticize journalists for their lack of coverage on certain necessities.

It seems to be a problem with little solution. You can’t strip journalists of opinions on something as relevant as who will be the next leader of their country, which will inevitably corrupt even their most noble attempts at neutrality. New corporations have to one-up each other in order to continue their funding at the expense of their own morality, or else there will be no news. Even the reader cannot adjust their natural interest in certain less substantial news despite how important it is for them to look at other elements. This is not to imply that all journalists are crooked, all news corporations soulless, and all Americans ignorant. It merely promotes the problematic nature in the relationship amongst reporters and politicians, as well as its imposition on the people. This is not a new issue, either. Undoubtedly it has existed through several American wars, elections, and scandals. Our country has just become liberal and advanced enough, like Hall, to express it.

The only meek possibility one can inherently rely on is the accessibility of the internet and the hope that the American public has taken time to follow a variety of sources, see through the biases, and formulate their own educated opinion.

Questions:

How much of a candidate’s success in an election nowadays is campaign strategy and how much is media’s tilted coverage?

What causes the media to get a “crush” as you said, on a candidate or political figure?

What solution do you see for fixing this tilted coverage on the minds of the American public?