Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Public opinion in the media
The role of the media in politics
The role of the media in politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Public opinion in the media
In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission introduced a policy referred to as the Fairness Doctrine in which “broadcast journalist was required to dedicate airtime to controversial issues of the public concern in a balanced manner” (p 19). The rationale for the policy was the belief that the media without the requirement to present information regarding controversial issues in an equitable and balanced manner would possess the power to sway public opinion in a manner that would not serve the public interest. Given that many Americans receive their information through the mainstream media like the major television networks and cable broadcasting entities, as well as newspapers such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, …show more content…
Many scientists disagreed with the Fairness Doctrine because they did not believe that in a fair debate there should be a balance when addressing these issues in the media. The logic for their disagreement centered upon the issue of fact versus opinion. “Tobacco caused cancer: that was a fact, and the industry knew”; nonetheless, media outlets choose to look past the evidence and continued to support those whose aim was to persuade consumers that smoking was not harmful and thus could not cause cancer (p 14). Oreskes and Conway argue that the Fairness Doctrine is effective only when someone is debating an issue that deserves to have equal time like matters of opinion. Further, the authors contend that many issues that remain controversial today have already been resolved, as facts have been established. When one side argues facts and the other side offers opinions as the counter argument, the public interest is not served. Opinion does not override a fact when it comes down to science and hard …show more content…
While the Fairness Doctrine might seem like an equitable manner, allowing the Public to become better informed on matters of great controversy, in reality, the doctrine can allow an opinionated group or one with heavily vested interests to spread disinformation thus working against the interest of the Public. While the intent of the policy was to do quite the opposite, the authors did establish that the Fairness Doctrine contributed to the distribution of false advertisements as well as false information on the effects of tobacco smoke. Further, the authors established the Fairness Doctrine allows for unproven theories or opinions to be viewed as scientific facts by a Public that may be easily persuaded. In 1987, the Federal Communication Commission eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. The Commission’s rationale for the change in policy was the proliferation of media outlets as well as Internet access to which the Public can go for information regarding controversial issues. The public is no longer limited in terms of sources as in
1. What is the tone of this article? The tone of this article is kinda snotty but truthful in all ways.
Menashe, L. (1998). An analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Tobacco Issues. Journal of Health Communication, 3, 307-325
The author of the article means many differing ideas from the following sentence: "When leaders attempt to navigate the slippery slope of fairness, they will find themselves arbiter of public opinion and hostage to the politically correct." With this sentence, the author means that when leaders, like presidents, mayors, or teachers become fair with their system, they will have ultimate authority and many will favor them. He introduced this idea by saying, “From a leadership perspective, it’s a leader’s obligation to do the right thing, regardless of whether or not it’s perceived as the fair thing.” Throughout the article, the author brings up the idea that when leaders, like President Obama, start suggesting that life needs to be fair, followers
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February, 1989.(AuBuchon) They suggested that because of the large amount of voices in the media marketplace, the doctrine was to be considered unconstitutional; stating that, “The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of The Fairness Doctrine restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters and actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.” (Fairness) The government was trying to keep any broadcasting networks for personally attaching someone or some issue without giving that person or organization the opportunity to express their point of views and reasons. If ...
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
A common myth spread amongst the public is that vaccines cause autism. Despite evidence disproving that, people still oppose vaccine laws because their fear of the government forcing their kids into getting vaccinated by unsafe drugs. ‘Vaccines Cause Autism’ was the headline of many articles when a falsified study was published in 1998 that provided fake evidence for a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. This led to some people opposing SB 277, a bill that requires children to get certain vaccines in order to attend public schools. The idea of a connection between vaccines and autism was so rampantly spread by media news outlets that people remain ignorant and contribute to the perpetuation
Justice is controlled differently all throughout the world. Similarly, justice means a different thing to different people. Though not always enforced, my definition of what is just most likely differs from the person next to me. However, there are some actions that are generally accepted as being unjust. To give one example from the reading it is controversial whether “laws” are capable of determining what is just & what is unjust. It can be agreed by most that there are some laws are unjust but it is controversial among people whether these unjust laws can justly be disobeyed. Is disobeying a law always unjust regardless of the absurdity of the particular law?
“The old argument that the networks and other ‘media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore…No we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.” (Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News) This example is tremendously important in the author’s discussion because it proves that news stories do manipulate people through bias. Popular news networks are viewed by thousands of people every single day, thus making it have a huge impact on the public since they believe what they see. When news reporters present their news segments, it is natural for them to give their insights due to human nature being instinctively biased. “The news media is [sic] only objective if they report something you agree with… Then they’re objective. Otherwise they’re biased if you don’t agree, you know.” (CNN’s American Morning) In this quote, the readers are presented to current panelists agreeing that news consumers have a very hard time separating their own view of the news from the perspective of the news reporters because they are presenting their own opinions throughout their segments. This problem exists once again because of the bias that is contained in media
“The views of people with strong opinions should be given equal prominence to those with compelling scientific evidence”. Discuss with reference to media coverage of a scientific controversy.
When media and news casting was created, it was to inform the public and present the with the cold, hard facts of the issue at hand. It was never intended to sway the beliefs of others or to focus on showing only one side of the story because that’s what the viewers wanted to hear, however it’s very apparent in today’s media that this is what is taking place. Examples of this occur within almost every piece of news available to the public, but one key example that comes to mind is concerned with the latest presidential
A common fallacy used by Mr. Naylor in the movie is the red herring fallacy. Here, the debater deliberately throws a discussion off course and create a different vision of the original topic. While speaking at the senatorial subcommittee hearing, Naylor argues that people should not be influenced by poison signs on cigarettes; instead; they should be responsible for making their own choices and educating themselves on the dangers of the product, rather than using a warning label for something people consider to be potentially dangerous. To buttress his point at the Congress Meeting, he says, “Gentlemen, it's called education. It doesn't come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves.” .He tactically shifts the issue from the dangers of smoking, addiction, and health to that of education which is one of the core values of the American people .Not only does Naylor shift the issue of smoking to that of education, he also shifts issues again from smoking to freedom. Naylor says that it is peopl...
Michael B. Siegel’s “A Smoking Ban Too Far” argues that banning smoking outdoors has no contribution to public health. States that the smoking outdoors’ ban is much weaker case than indoors, consequently it could cause a backlash that could threaten the goals of the antismoking movement. Instead antismoking organizations should focus on extending the policies that prevent smoking indoors in the 21 states that still allow it. Siegel’s article is somewhat effective, because the claim is backed up with facts that show the experience of the author on the subject, however it lacks stylistic elements that would bribe the audience to accept Siegel’s claim.
Although the Tobacco Industry recently paid enormous fines to the US Government and Individual states, they continue to promote smoking and influence young human beings world wide to use their products through multi dimensional advertising. For decades Americans were not told the truth about the dangers of smoking. The media stayed silent because it did not want to lose the hundreds of millions of dollars it made from cigarette advertising.
Smoking is a simple process of inhaling and exhaling the fumes of burning tobacco, but it has deadly consequences. According to the American Cancer Society, smoking is the most preventable cause of death in America today (Encarta, 2002). Until the 1940?s, smoking was considered harmless. It was at this time that epidemiologists noticed a dramatic increase in the cases of lung cancer. A study was then conducted between smokers and nonsmokers to determine if cigarettes were the cause of this increase. This study, conducted by the American Cancer Society, found increased mortality among smokers. Yet it was not until 1964 that the Surgeon General put out a report acknowledging the danger of cigarettes. The first action to curb smoking was the mandate of a warning on cigarette packages by the Federal Trade Commission (Encarta, 2002). In 1971, all cigarette advertising was banned from radio and television, and cities and states passed laws requiring nonsmoking sections in public places and workplaces (Encarta, 2002). Now in some cities smoking is being completely banned from public places and workplaces and various people are striving for more of these laws against smoking.
In the late 1900’s a massive trend took over America. Smoking became a huge hit especially among teenagers. It was cool, and those that smoked sat at the top of the social ladder in high schools across America. The success of smoking and its popularity among teenagers was due to the public perception about smoking. At the time of its success, the public perception was wildly positive. There were claims that smoking had great effects on individual health and that there were no negative side effects. There is nothing more telling about the American perception of smoking than the movie Grease, where the nice girl becomes queen of the school after a lifestyle change that includes the addition of smoking. However, America has changed. Americans