ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on December 19, 2011

Is it clear?

The media must always tell the truth, or at least try to do so most of the time. Their (media) honesty has not been clear recently, as it has been questionable; and their (media's) motivation looks vague or political in so many aspects.

Instead of them refereeing and showing neutrality, they are rather actively in the forefront of American politics fighting; but for whom, nobody knows exactly.

A great number of American citizens are part of the industry, directly or indirectly, and so they cannot bite the finger that feeds them; however, the actions of some members or a faction of the industry sometimes leave much to be desired.

By virtue of being part of free speech, which is protected by the United States Constitution via the first amendment, the media, as they are now called, are unrestricted in any way, shape or form.

Unlike the Medical profession, which has the Hippocratic Oath as its guidance, the media have their own rules of conduct, which lie on the borderline of governing the industry or to be ignored from time to time, depending on circumstances. They (rules) are not mandatory; they are "self imposed" by the media.

As such, editorial boards can choose and pick how they will follow the rules, based upon the policies of those boards at any given time.

The pollster companies are also part of the media, and they can conduct their surveys and researches any way they want, without them resorting to those rules.

In recent months the results of their surveys SEEM faulty, as they are more lopsided against President Barack Obama than they are in his favor.

They maintain that his approval rating is falling; however, that is not likely to be true, since his priorities are being fulfilled one by one. For example, the economy, which has been problematic for some time now is in recovery. He is bringing the Iraqi war to an end, and his foreign policy is on the rise, with relations between the U.S. and Burma being the latest feather in his cap.

Besides, Osama bin Laden and Gadhafi have both been eliminated. Al Qeada is on the run and totally disoriented and disorganized.

He is the only president that has gone to war, with America's allies, NATO, and has not a single member of the armed forces becoming a casualty. The United States is receiving credit for his foresight in deciding not to put military forces on the ground, but finding a way to win a victory in Libya.

Come to think of it, he has done more than Reagan, G.W. Bush, W. Bush and Clinton combined; and although, he has other problems to grapple with, like border protection and immigration, he has plans to tackle them in a second term. Again the recovery of the economy is steadily picking up; it is rebounding as fast as any true economist expected.

In addition, it is under his watch that the reclusive and staunch enemy of the U.S., the North Korean leader Kin Jong-il, has died.

So, how can his approval rating be declining or sliding down? Who are the pollsters interviewing, and with what kind of questions? Are they feeding the public false figures and reports? If so, why?

The editors base their opinions on the information they have gathered and then decide on how to disseminate it, either to deceive the public or to hide the actual facts, as there are no specific rules for the media to adhere to.

One particular news outlet has opted to make everything that Obama is doing to be immaterial, inconsequential and not in the best interest of the nation. Or it is criticizing the president for having too many vacations, if it is not querying his personal leisure time, for playing too much golf; and so on and so forth.

It is this same outlet that is harping on the so called Obama's low approval ratings theme, day in and day out; as if the people on that channel have nothing else to talk about.

Where is the objectivity, the forthrightness and the fairness that must characterize the activities of the media, for them to be seen as being neutral, unbiased and truthful?

A true Democracy is gauged by its media, and if they, media, are dishonest, that country will have no credibility in the international political feild, because its people tend to be comfortable with the lies that they are being fed with.

America must not be that country, or it will lose its title of a "city on a hill", whose light keeps shining bright and beacons all freedom loving people to honesty and truthfulness, even in news reporting and broadcasting.

Media honesty; shouldn't it be as clear as the sound of a bell? If not, then there is something drastically wrong.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 6 years ago

      You are hitting close to home. I was a newspaper reporter for 16 years and worked with the media as a PR director for 22 years.

      I am not pleased with most of the media today. Part of the problem, and I will be criticized for this, is that there are too many media outlets, looking to fill up too much time and therefore are looking for something that will either attract viewers or readers or create a new crisis.

      I can list faults and accomplishments of almost every president back to Franklin Roosevelt--could go back further, but that would take research. When Ronald Reagan died, many said he was the greatest president of the 20th century.

      I disagree. It would be hard to pick the best. Harry Truman comes to mind. Like it or not, he dropped the Atomic bomb that ended WWII and probably saved more lives than were lost and created a healthy respect for the fear of nuclear weapons. Through the Marshall Plan he help to rebuild Europe. Those were not small accomplishments.

      I worked in the newspaper side of the business many years ago. I worked hard to be objective and think I did a good job. I also wrote a twice weekly column for the editorial page where I voiced my opinions. I worked hard to keep the two separate.

      Today, the opinions and the facts are blended into one story or one newscast. If there is blame it goes to the networks trying to boost ratings, the shrinking of the newspaper industry and the overexposure of everything.

      I saw a PBS special the other night about the development of Folk Music in Greenwich Village in New York. It was where musically inclined people learned their craft in the Folk Music era. Newspapers and local televisions stations provided the same learning ground.

      But there are few newspapers and television stations are owned by chains while radio has pretty much given up on news and gone to the talk radio format--which I refuse to listen too because regardless of the host's political views, his job is to create conflict with the listeners.

      There is good journalism to be found. You have to look for it. The presidential election is all but over. Obama will be elected to a second term. The Republicans have not put up a viable candidate--not that some of them are not qualified, they are just not viable. The Republican primaries are splitting, so there may not be a clear leader when the nominating convention is held. The economy is getting a little better. Social Security recipients are getting an increase for the first time in several years. Obama is an expert at campaigning. People are forgetting that.

      The comments by Kathleen are probably more coherent than what I am trying to say. Political parties are doing more harm than good. I do not know any way to eliminate them--the right of assembly and free speech protect the existence of political parties.

      Thus, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to separate the milk from the cream, or in this case the trash from the news.

      Just because something is said on a news program does not make it news. It just means that it was used to fill up time. If the reporter or commentator feels compelled to yell his story or views at you, ignore him. There is a mindset among many that if you say something often enough and loud enough, everyone will believe it.

      Finally, it goes back to the concept of the silent majority. There are a vast number of people who do not discuss their political views. They do not take part in polls. They do vote and they do make a difference.

      I have been registered as an independent voter most of my life. In my last job, where I worked 22 years, my co-workers tried to figure out what I was--liberal or conservative. They never came to a consensus.

      I oppose abortion--I have an adopted son.

      I favor more gun control--the founding fathers did not anticipate AK47s or armor piercing bullets.

      I favor the expansion of Social Security and Medicare benefits--I recognize that both need close examination and that a lot of waste can be eliminated.

      I believe you have the right to burn the flag--just do not do it in my yard or use my flag. Our country was founded through revolution. A person has a right to express his frustration by burning a piece of cloth--you cannot destroy the history.

      I do not think children under the age of 15 should be out hunting animals--they have to be 16 or more to drive a car. A gun, like a car, can be a lethal weapon.

      I believe in foreign aid, financing the space program, changing the rules of congress, eliminating the filibuster, imposing term limits.

      I have no problem with prayer in school--I prayed before every chemistry and physics test I took.

      I believe in this country, with all its faults and flaws, I cannot think of anywhere else I would want to live or any other news media I would trust more than what we have available to us today. However, when criticism is justified, I will not be afraid to voice my opinion in the proper forum and by the same token, I will support what I think is good. That is called Freedom of Choice and that is the cornerstone of our country.

    • Kathleen Cochran profile image

      Kathleen Cochran 6 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

      Interesting observations from the viewpoint of someone (I am assuming) is not an American. I think the rest of the world has a better opinion of President Obama than Americans do. Our country has dissolved into a contest between the party that won the White House and the party that lost. The only goal - too often - is just winning the Presidency and nothing else. Our media is caught in the trap of reporting the latest incidents in that contest instead of doing their job, which is providing the information Americans need to make the decisions that move us forward. (And I say this from the viewpoint of a former journalist. I was in newspapers for a decade.)

      Good Hub.