I just attended a discussion on the Media and the upcoming elections. The original plan was to ask questions about the Medias role in the election which I feel they accomplished but there were some very insightful questions that came from the audience also.
The first thing that really captured my attention and thought was when the comment was made that the
One question that was asked pertained to does the media have power to sway votes. Susan Albright responded to this question and she brought an interesting point up. She said that most of the time she feels the media (Print media) just adds to the discussion. That the print media couldn’t sway votes one way or another. This was until she went to the polls and saw people walking in with a cut out from the newspaper. The cut out part they were carrying was the people that news paper endorsed. So she concluded with saying that she doesn’t feel the media has power to sway votes on the big level, but she said on the small elections such as city council or park and rec boards they do have power. This was interesting to me because I know my dad dropped one of the papers when they endorsed a different candidate than who he would be voting for. I know he did this because he felt if they were going to endorse a candidate that all of their stories would be biased. I know that many other people feel that the newspaper shouldn’t endorse candidates they should just tell us about the candidates. So I would like to ask the newspapers why endorse if it doesn’t do you any good?
Another thing that really interested me was when they asked the gentleman who is now the Senate Majority Leader communications consultant; they asked him what he tells the senators to say to the media. He said that he teaches them how to use words that won’t be deemed as fighting words. This is because if they say the “fighting” words that then stories are published about them. Although if they say it with a different word then its not a fighting word. This was so interesting to me because as I gear up for my practice interview tomorrow when I learn how to interview better I only see that as more coaching. Its interesting to me that we can’t just say who we are, we can’t say certain things because the media in this case will use it against you.
Another good question was asked on what are the consequences for media that lies. The answer somewhat shocked me but then I thought about it more. The answer is that the news media does have to answer to truth laws. While they aren’t held to the same standard as advertising for example but they are held to these standards. I then thought well how come I don’t know about anytime when a news station lied and was punished for it. Then it dawned on me, why would they run a story on something bad for them, why would they come out and tell us that at one time they lied. Well it just makes me wonder are there more times out there where the media lied and nobody found out?
The final point I would like to leave you with came form the gentleman from www.Minnpost.com. The question was something about how now media is owned by major conglomerates and they are for profit. The response was great, he told about how when the Star Tribune was owned by a local wealthy family they made some money off the Star Tribune but that the main goal of the newspaper was to report. Now the Star Tribune is owned by a major equity firm and the main goal there is to make large profits. Not to tell the news, these people live in paradise and don’t care about what we report they only care about what is going to make them their next buck. Susan Albright also mentioned that back in the day journalists were very disconnected from the owners. There were very few conversations about what the journalists were writing about. Now they are very connected, pulling the strings of the journalists. I don’t even know what to say about this, this seems so messed up I would like to leave it to you. Thanks and enjoy the hopefully soon to be falling snow! :)
