Generally considered to represent the conservative right wing is the Accuracy in Media (AIM) group, and on the liberal left wing we have Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). These groups would like to function as the gatekeeper instead of allowing the public to use the gatekeeper within to decide on an individual level what information to receive and/or believe. Both groups believe they are protecting the public interest by promoting truth and fairness, preserving freedom of speech, and protecting us from harmful or even socially unacceptable ideas.
Do these groups actually provide a valuable service to the public? Put another way, if the media simply reports occurences and debates, do they really need to be brought to task for the views and occurences reported? Both sides seem to have their own version of the truth on emotionally charged issues and incidents. In most cases these groups do exhibit common sense, in attempting to ensure equal time for dissenting opinion, and in bringing to light overlooked or ignored facts, but on occasion fringe elements on either side call for measures that push the bounds of reason. Lobbying for legislation banning or restricting certain views and pieces of information is one of these measures. These groups often charge the media with biased reporting (Zeidenberg, 1990), and attempt to get the media to change their coverage to the proper way of viewing things, which is, of course, the viewpoint of whichever watchdog group is upset about the current perceived bias.
The information which is always flowing all round us is in itself the solution to the problem, at least as far as the accuracy and depth of factual coverage goes. With the spread of information databases, there is no longer any valid excuse, except lack of funds, for using faulty, unreliable information when the means to check and cross-check the validity of both the information and the source is readily available. Using television as the representative media, a 1989 study done with 247 of the stations in the largest 100 Areas of Dominant Influence (ADIs) found (Jacobson, 1989):
Fears that database use may be multiplying inaccurate data reporting can be quelled by adherence to the rule of using multiple sources to verify facts and check the premises of opinions. The ready availabilty of competing databases, and the number of independent reports on subjects allows easy cross-checking of information. The general feel in newsrooms is that proper reporting practices will ensure the accuracy of media reports (Jacobson, 1989).
I feel the watchdog groups on both ends of the political spectrum should be spending less time trying to gag the other side and more time researching facts, background, and making sure their analysis of situations is presented to the public in as clear a manner as possible. This will help ensure that power, in both political and economic areas, is not used to an unfair advantage by either side through the manipulation or the withholding of information. Through the proper use of information technologies, instead of attempts to ban opinions, the public interest will be better served in allowing divergent views to be presented with supporting citations that can be easily checked by a wide variety of people in a fast, accurate, and convenient manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
Questions or comments about these Web pages? Send e-mail to
dave@reststop.net