In his article “Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press” January 12, 2009 Jay Rosen states that in mass media, the press was able to push just their views on readers. He says they could do this because they were only clued into the media by the medium used, but they did not have a connection or way to discuss these matters with each other; and now they do because of the internet. I think he is correct in saying that, and that the internet has helped people to define not only the information they are given by one source, but many, and to then come to a conclusion about that information, not only depending on the view of the journalist they are reading. He relates a interesting view by a press scholar Daniel Hallin, who felt he needed something more than and decided to look at how journalists view their material. In his book The Uncensored War he came up with a diagram, showing the practice of hidden politics by journalist. 1- The sphere of legitimate debate 2- The sphere of Consensus and 3-The sphere of Deviance.
In Legitimate Debate this is where the journalist works. This is where two party debates are carried out, where both parties discuss the “issues” or what they want us to believe the issues are. It is not always easy to know what the truth is, or which side is right or wrong, or if there is a right or wrong. The journalists are giving their side, weighing in on the information that they feel we need to know. In the sphere of consensus, this is where the information that is agreed upon is given. This is the common truth area and journalists don’t feel the need to present differing points of views. If you don’t agree with the points made and these given truths, then people will say the press is biased, and I believe they are. In the third sphere of deviance lives the information that is deemed unnecessary and the press does not share it with us. It is not fair that they don’t share all of the facts with the public.
Journalist should not be allowed to keep important information from the public. I don’t feel like I want to know everything that is going with all topics, but information about political topics should all be shared. The press also is known for totally keeping some information out of the news or painting it in a light that makes it unacceptable. Hallin makes the point that if you find your views outside of mainstream journalism or politics, you will be hard pressed to find your views voiced in the press. The three spheres are not totally separate from each other; the lines forming the separate spheres do fade in and out of each other. Although, even in the grey areas of the circle, the press still has the power to explain or persuade to meet their needs and agendas for the story. In his story he quotes that (Atrios: “I’ve long noticed a tendency of the American press to take the side of official US policy when covering foreign affairs.”) He also says that public opinion and social behavior does change over time, and that is so true. Just watch the approval ratings of the president; they go up and down almost daily.
In conclusion, journalists use their power of words and persuasion to change public opinion, even if it means only giving their side of the story .Journalists can incite fear, negativity, rage, excitement, joy and many other emotions both positive and negative with their stories. The First Amendment gives them Freedom of Speech to say whatever they want, whenever they want. They get to decide on what belongs in the media without asking our opinion or giving the whole story. I don’t agree with that. This article goes on to talk about how important social networking and sharing of information is, and I agree with that. It is nice to be able to go to several political websites and read many different views about the same topic. Then to be able to go online and state your own political view, share it with many like minded or not like minded individuals. Journalist do not like this, as it weakens their following and the need for only their opinions and idealism. Journalist downgrade blogging and social sharing as not being reliable: and like many other things that is their opinion. I for one enjoy feeling like I can get several different views of a situation, and I get my opinion and views heard too. They may not always be right, or politically correct, but it is shared information and ideas. I feel that this helps me to not only get information, but makes me think more about what is going on around me, and to come up with my own opinion.
