TRAMvay 17
In my opinion, media can screen voices if they have enough evidence to question the both sides of the story. Thus, they are responsible of all the news they encounter. Media’s responsibility is to question the facts that have a benefit the society. In order to cover the story as beneficial as it can be for the society, the editor should follow the researches she/he has conducted to wherever it may lead. At the end, if the story has a debatable situation, the op-ed writer or the editor should criticize and examine the both sides. For instance after a reunion of 9/11 victims with Obama, Washington Post decides to broadcast the interview of Burlingame’s thoughts and speeches in the reunion. Jennifer Rubin, who is the conservative column writer[1] of “Right Turn” in the Washington Post, evaluated this interview and its outcomes. By letting it covered by a conservative writer, Post did not examine the interview objectively. The Post covers the thoughts of Rubin on Obama: “On a human level, this is a shocking reminder of just how emotionally disconnected and downright rude President Obama can be. Obama brusquely says (…) I can’t imagine for a moment that George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan would have acted with such dismissiveness.”[2] In my opinion, if the media is going to cover a story, it should be broadcasted as objective as possible or it should ask the questions, which will puzzle the reader because one of the aims of the media should be that they are interested in politics but not in it, by creating query posts. Even though as an op-ed writer Rubin defends what she thinks, Washington Post leads its readers to think similar to her because of the limited time and space they are struggling with like any other media in the world. If the media intends to create an efficient and erudite society, it should urge people into thinking and seeing the facts. For example even though Wikileaks is sharing its files and the facts of the world with public, they are not informing the public in the right way. Media helps people to understand and connect the happenings around them. Although media should act like a third eye, they should also consider the criticizations of the public and the government time to time. But I think, if the media inquires the both sides of a situation equally, respects the knowledge of the reader and screens voices to reach an equitable level on its debate, the media fulfills its responsibility.
Even though, how the media covers the story represents their position, also their decision of not covering the story represents it too. In Burlingame’s interview case the New York Times chose to not cover it. New York Times could have posted an article which is based on he/she said. While NY Times chose this way, Fox News chose to broadcast another interview[3] with Burlingame a night before the reunion. By publishing the video Fox News leaves its readers to decide and inform themselves on the subject. I think media should stop using the horse race technique in every type of news because there are certain people who just get informed from one media device. By applying this technique to other news like Burlingame and 9/11 victims’ reunion New York Times missed the opportunity of informing its clients and in contrast to Fox News, New York Times showed that it is taking sides.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/jennifer-rubin/2011/02/24/ABbIUXN_page.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-rude-and-unresponsive-to-sister-of-911-victim/2011/03/29/AFbOQB8F_blog.html
[3] http://video.foxnews.com/v/4677708/911-family-member-slams-obamas-ground-zero-trip
Related Articles
