Media Objectivity is Corrupt with Bias Journalists are expected to adhere to objectivity when delivering news to the public. Media in general reports what will attract viewers but, when it comes to relaying information about world news, the coverage is presumed to be reported neutrally. Major international news outlets gain popularity because of the proclaimed fairness in reporting. When personal opinion effects what a journalist decides to report, it can have major implications on the subject at hand. Since the general public relies on the non biased news coverage of international reports, they are at the mercy of the decisions made by the reporters. Honesty is an obvious and fundamental goal in journalism but, it is not always possible
…show more content…
Headlines and articles have explicit words so that the journalist can either make a point or get more views from society. When a writer decides to omit certain details or words, the journalist does so to dictate what message they wish to portray. Many writers will stick to their standards and use different word choice depending on context. When a journalist gives reasons for not using certain words and then uses them it reveals a strong message about that writer. There have been cases where something is said by someone and then later the complete opposite is said. This can be blamed on change and growth of understanding a certain subject. With journalists, something of this sort seems unstable for their reputation. Holding double standards gives a bad status to a journalist. It shows obvious bias, especially when the double standard is denied and blamed on word choice. This decision to prefer two different ways of saying the same thing can greatly impact public response. In the essay, “Double Standards for Israel”, Mondfred Gerstenfeld, chair member of the Board of Jerusalem Public Affairs, responds to the double standard in which Israel is being treated with in public media. A New York Times reporter, Okrent backs his claims in the lack of use of the word terrorist in news stories of Israel by saying that he believes a terrorist is someone that acts against innocent civilians and not against a military. When he later uses the headline “4 from Britian Carried out Terror Blasts” he states the word terror even though it was only against civilians and no military was involved, but it was in Britain. In Netanya, Israel, the word terrorism was never mentioned in an article he wrote where it could have been mentioned at least 27 times (8) This is only one example of the double standards used by journalists in regards to the terror that Israel faces all the time. When an attack happens
Headlines and articles have explicit words so that the journalist can either make a point or get more views from society. When a writer decides to omit certain details or words, the journalist does so to dictate what message they wish to portray. Many writers will stick to their standards and use different word choice depending on context. When a journalist gives reasons for not using certain words and then uses them it reveals a strong message about that writer. There have been cases where something is said by someone and then later the complete opposite is said. This can be blamed on change and growth of understanding a certain subject. With journalists, something of this sort seems unstable for their reputation. Holding double standards gives a bad status to a journalist. It shows obvious bias, especially when the double standard is denied and blamed on word choice. This decision to prefer two different ways of saying the same thing can greatly impact public response. In the essay, “Double Standards for Israel”, Mondfred Gerstenfeld, chair member of the Board of Jerusalem Public Affairs, responds to the double standard in which Israel is being treated with in public media. A New York Times reporter, Okrent backs his claims in the lack of use of the word terrorist in news stories of Israel by saying that he believes a terrorist is someone that acts against innocent civilians and not against a military. When he later uses the headline “4 from Britian Carried out Terror Blasts” he states the word terror even though it was only against civilians and no military was involved, but it was in Britain. In Netanya, Israel, the word terrorism was never mentioned in an article he wrote where it could have been mentioned at least 27 times (8) This is only one example of the double standards used by journalists in regards to the terror that Israel faces all the time. When an attack happens