After doing much research and reading the short stories in the partisan press, I can genuinely say that I believe that the old system, when news sources were openly partisan, was indeed a better way to do it. To force news sources to be bipartisan in my opinion is a way of limiting the writer/journalist’s freedom of speech and expression which is a first amendment right. As long as there is no slander or defamation involved I don't see why having openly partisan news sources would be an issue as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The issue with artisan sources or even partisan ideas is not avoiding being biased but avoiding being disrespectful of the onions of others who do not quite agree. There are many similarities between the old system of news and the online news experience. One major parallel is how politicians use reputable news sources who are on their side of politics to publicize themselves and give them a good image. The same thing is done today as it was then, it's just much easier with social media and news sources having many different ways of communicating with their viewers.
Objectivity or non bias in news delivery can be an important goal to some but it doesn't have to be. I believe that as long as both parties are respectful to one another and can coexist, objectivity is not a compulsory goal to have. While it's much appreciated in many ways, the bias that each party has for their own ideas, will be obvious in one way or another which makes objectivity extremely difficult as well. This is why I say that regardless of party or news network having mutual respect is all that is needed to succeed in news delivery.
No comments:
Post a Comment