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
