Thread: An Unbiased Media

The media has a responsibility to provide an unbiased, un-sanitized view, but this is not always the case. The information given in the media should not be opinionated and should give clear facts. However, is this really possible? A great example of this is how the media portrayed to the public the events that took place on 11th September 2001.

On Tuesday 11th September 2001, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and one side of the Pentagon. Within hours of this event, world media sources were covered with the story. Was everything accurate though? Was everything looked at from both sides? Whatever the media writes, this will become, for the most part, the view of the public. The answers given to these questions, will be taken as fact, and absorbed by members of the public like this. Whatever the media says, whether fact or opinion, it will be seen as fact in the general publics eyes. Only the cynics of the world will look twice while the vast majority will absorb what is being spoon-fed to them.

I believe that a British writer cannot write about something that has affected them without being biased in what they write. This is the same with every country. If something is small, and affects only a few people then it can be written about sticking just to facts, but when it affects the world, there is always going to be opinions showing through in the media.

When I first heard of what had happened I was on my Work Experience placement. People around me, just having come back from lunch, were talking about it and I could tell something had happened. At the time, they sounded mainly like rumours and I did not really have a clear picture of what had happened until I got back. The television was showing live pictures of the attack. Smoke was coming from the World Trade Center and it was then as the reporter described the events that I realized the enormity of what had happened. BBC news was my first real source of information; the news broadcast at this time was very factual and did not really sanitize the news for anyone. It was only in the following days, through the newspapers that the information really came through.

In The Guardian', 22 September there is an article entitled 'Attack on America'. The title, in its own, uses a technique which may affect the publics viewpoint. The title uses alliteration, which may or may not be deliberate. Through this use of alliteration, the title becomes apparent and is remembered by the public. People will remember the phrase 'Attack on America'. The actual article includes excerpts from world media articles. In actual fact all the excerpts are from allies of America or people who wish to stay on the right side of them. The language used, even in the headline is very much biased towards America. The World Trade Center bombing is summed up as an attack on the nation as a whole, when in actual fact, it is just one building. Although all of the articles support America in some way, not all of them are for the obvious course of action, revenge. Quentin Peel from the Financial Times has the idea of tackling the cause of terrorism.

"To fight terrorism in the long term......... fight the cause of Terrorism."

This shows that this article is not entirely biased, but no one from Afghanistan was interviewed, only allies and people who have had previous dealings with America were asked.

Another article I have read was featured in The Times, 12th September, a day after the attacks.

"These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. TERRORISTS laid waste to the citadels of American capitalism and defense yesterday..."

This is a quote taken from the article that sums up the impression given throughout the article. The headings point is further put forward, by lodging it firmly in the readers' mind. Through the repetition and sibilance of the 's' sound, the title, specifically These acts shattered steel....' is remembered by the reader. The article, being so soon after the attacks was giving facts about what had happened, but it was evident that there was favour towards America and the victims. In my opinion, this particular instance is not wrong. The article is written by a British journalist, and being part of the same civilization as well as allies during the world wars, they will almost certainly be on America's side. They cannot be expected to remain neutral throughout.

The media has a responsibility to provide an unbiased story, yet the tragedies affect not just America but the world. America has dealings with every country in the western world and when they are facing any type of trouble, it will affect the rest. The bombing of The World Trade Center does affect everyone. Besides the many people killed, the economic world, in which America is a big player, would suffer. For example, any business that had dealings or anything to do with a business based at The World Trade Center will have problems. People from all over the world visited the Center on business trips, and many killed may have been British. When people you have never met die are not the only people killed, but even neighbors, the shock does become apparent. It is only human to let some of this anger slip out into the articles.

The illustration of this article showed the twin towers, with smoke, dust and debris rising from the ruins. This picture immediately sums up the tragedy that had occurred. An illustration in a newspaper article, will always be the first thing a readers eye is drawn to. The impact it gives will determine whether or not the reader looks at the rest of the article. As such, it is a key element in the Media's ploy to make a reader look at a specific piece of news. When a photograph is shown, it is automatically assumed it is real, so the rest of the article will be judged with the same view; as such it is probable that a journalist's opinion will be taken as fact by the reader.

At this point, fingers were being pointed, but no one really knew who had done this or why. A power as mighty as America will almost certainly look for revenge in a situation such as this. The western world, specifically Britain and America were united on this front. The British public's views were going to be strong anyway. So much death and destruction cannot be ignored, wherever it happens. Yet when it is a super power, such as America, and an ally of Britain, the feelings will almost certainly be strong. Only the facts are needed for this, yet when a reporter writes an article about something so large scale and tragic, their views will naturally leak through, thus influencing and reinforcing the views of the public.

News is taken by most everyone to be truthful and simply that, news. This convention can be used to the advantage of many, as the public will almost always believe what they are told.

In conclusion, the British media, and in fact all media, do have a responsibility to provide an unbiased, un-sanitized picture of events. Whatever the media says, will be instantly taken as truth by the majority of the public. But as people, with feelings, opinions and morals, a tragedy of this magnitude cannot be ignored. It cannot be reported whilst adhering to this reporter's code. When such an event happens, the media cannot be expected by anyone to remain completely neutral.

wizen

Reads title "Unbiased Media" and bursts into uncontrollable, "hyenic" laughter--HEHEHEHEHE

Seriously, Wiz, good article. It is literally--and I say this as a journalist, although one of so little importance that it's laughable--IMPOSSIBLE to ever have an "unbiased" media. In order to have that, you'd have to have "unbiased" human beings--which, as we know, is an impossibility. The media will always be biased. But, humans just have to look through those prejudices that are obvious and pick out the "real" news. Which, yeah, is tedious, but enlightening all the same.

HEHE. (Just pray that the media keeps its left-wing slant. If not for you, then for ME. HEHEHEHEHEHE. , J/K. )

~KLRS