Today, there are many different methods in which a person could be entertained or informed. Of course, many of these methods come from the media. With such a wide variety of media, such as movies, TV, the Internet, and newspapers, one would think they would be able to view a wide variety of information, opinions, and entertainment. However, what some do not relize is that the media decides what they leave out of a story and what they put into a story; this is called framing.
Framing is the concept that those who present the media can alter and morph the way it is presented. The presenter is able to mutate the implication or the notion of the story by using certain tones in his or her's choice of words. The presenter can even flat out decide what facts to include in the story, so as to illustrate the information that he or she desires or the information that he or she is pressed to illustrate. Thus, although the viewer may be told that freedom of press exists in our society, the media itself is censored constantly and often the censors are the presenters themselves.
Take for instance, one of the founders and current publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner is a outspoken liberal and has been for many years. His recent interviews for Rolling Stone include the likes of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. As one looks through RS, he or she may notice that each of the magazine's "National Affairs" articles are almost always written to support liberals and insult or criticize conservatives. The reader could presume that Jann Wenner chose "National Affairs" writers Matt Taibbi and Tom Dickinson because they are also outspoken liberals and the reader could also presume that Taibbi and Dickinson write to criticize conservatives because they desire to keep their positions as two of the magazines's contributing editors. Taibbi and Dickinson realize that the consistency of the content in their work pleases Wenner and it also fits with the other standards of RS. Therefore, Taibbi and Dickinson choose what to leave out and what to put into their stories, so as to sway the reader's opinion to the that of not only themselves, but Wenner's as well. Frankly, I only read Rolling Stone for the music articles and hardly read the political articles, but it does scare me a little that media outlets like my beloved magazine would choose to be so biased. It would seem as though a casual reader would not be able to find a "National Affairs" article depicting Democrats negatively, therefore the article would not be entirely truthful. It would seem as though Taibbi and Dickinson refuse to report objectively on the Democrats or the Republicans; because "National Affairs" is included in every issue and seen by millions, I'm sure this pleases Wenner.
Of course, RS has had articles criticizing Presdient Obama and other liberals as well, so one might say that the magazine aims to be critical of all political affairs. There was the article questioning Obama's progress as president and the article about General McChrystal, and that is pretty refreshing. However, neither of those articles were written by Taibbi nor Dickinson. Go figure. Now while I rarely read the "National Affairs" articles, I do glance over them long enough to know that most of the time, they are very one sided. I know that sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about, but anybody could see it. Further more, all of his Wenner's political donations have gone to the Democrats, so you have that as well.
Now some people might argue that Rolling Stone has an agenda to meet, and that agenda is being mostly liberal. Those people might also say that that is why the magazine has so many liberal minded articles, so that it can fulfill its duty to its mostly liberal minded readers. Good point. However, could a person suggest that Rolling Stone has a liberal agenda to meet because Wenner is a liberal. Wenner and co founder and music critic Ralph J. Gleason (died in 1975) created this magazine to encompass things they were interested in. Wenner made sure that he had mostly writers who had the same ideals he had and he surely chose want went in and what came out of his magazine. Doesn't Wenner's agenda reflect what framing he decides to use in his magazine?
Rolling Stone offers their magazine online and here are links to some of the "National Affairs" articles:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64863
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64858
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64765
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12493/64386
No comments:
Post a Comment