Storytelling vs. Reconciliation

   We tend to listen with our fingers in our ears, meaning people only hear what they want to. It is all to easy to dismiss someone's opposing opinion with a simple "you're wrong", but in order to understand anything, we must listen and understand the opposition. Ever since we were little, our teachers and parents have taught us there are always two sides to every story. This valuable lesson plays an important part in workaday life.

 The death of Michael Brown was a tragic event, as well as the proceeding unrest in Ferguson. The police are still trying to piece together the broken shards of what happened, but it is clear there are two sides. Some say Michael Brown had his hands up and was fleeing Officer Wilson, while others object that Brown was a dangerous, posing threat to the Officer. The media undoubtedly showed bias to one side or another. There were very few reporters and writers that maintained an objective stance on the whole of the situation. This brings about questions surrounding the future of news media outlets. If any of these outlets cease to preserve the smallest bit of objectiveness they have left, who is there left to trust?
   A few weeks ago, my e-Comm teacher told us that he sometimes prefers the BBC website as a news source, rather than sites like CNN or The New York Times. He then went on to say that the BBC often has a more unbiased and objective view than any American news media outlet. Is this what happens when we feel like we can't trust our own news sources? Do other countries find America's stories about their own country, less biased?
   When a story or event blows up globally, it is everywhere. Proof from campaigns like "STOP KONY 2012" show how fast a story can spread, especially if promoted over social media. The video and posters for this campaign spread like wildfire, but after a couple days it became apparent that the "STOP KONY 2012" campaign was not 100% truthful. Despite the "one-sidedness" of stories being spread over social media, their rapid spreading can be an incredible tool if used right. When the revolution and uprising in Syria began, social media became a more useful tool than anything else. The residents, rebels and refugees of Syria used social media expose what was happening — that is before the Syrian government shut them down. Even thought the exposure of the unrest was brief, it was enough to get people's attention and take action.
   Social media has become and incredible tool for situations like those in Syria, but some countries do not have this luxury. China, and some other Asian and Middle Eastern countries do not have access to social media. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, even Google is blocked. This is not because any of the countries are in a rural area or underdeveloped, but because the government decides what they want the people to see. For America this is a terrifying thought, and makes us wonder what kind of news China is fed. This proves that the levels of "bias-ness" have also flooded into politics.

   While the future of news media outlets is not set in stone, it is certainly headed in the wrong direction if it continues on it's current path.

 Peace in Ferguson - Casey Neistat