post a 150- to 300-word response to the following discussion question by clicking on Reply:
Has the explosion of available information made media coverage better or worse? How did the Fairness Doctrine affect media coverage, and are you for its revival or not?
Explain your answers.
Please understand that no one here will do your work for you. However, we will be happy to read over whatever you come up with and make suggestions and/or corrections.
Please post what you think.
better, much better! we can get the news twenty four hours a day, and that is excellent! good luck
Has the explosion of available information made media coverage better or worse? Explain your answer.
I think that the explosion of today’s media coverage has its bad and good points. The fact that we have the ability to see news updates virtually anywhere (even with a cellphone) has made media better than worse in my opinion. I like how I can have news feeds sent directly to my email inbox, while getting an update of the post on my phone. I used to hate waiting until the six ‘o clock news just to see what was going on in my community. Either I would have to get up early to see the morning news, buy a newspaper, or like I said before, wait till the six ‘o clock news. Personally, I do not watch news on the television. News is more tainted with the same gossip that every other source is talking about, just using different ways to point out the same hot, new story. I don’t want to have to watch the whole news show at 6 ‘o clock just to hear the stories I want to hear about, I would rather pick what I want of the internet.
In the modern digital age, the explosion of available information has undoubtedly had a significant impact on media coverage. Whether this has made media coverage better or worse is a subjective question that depends on various factors.
On one hand, the proliferation of information allows for a greater diversity of viewpoints and perspectives to be covered by the media. The accessibility of information has empowered individuals to participate in shaping the news agenda through citizen journalism and social media. This has the potential to enhance the breadth and depth of media coverage by providing a platform for marginalized voices and shedding light on underreported issues. The vast amount of available information also enables fact-checking and holding media outlets accountable for accurate reporting.
On the other hand, the explosion of information has led to challenges in verifying the accuracy and credibility of sources. The speed at which information spreads, often through social media, can result in the dissemination of misinformation, leading to public confusion and erosion of trust in the media. The saturation of information can also result in information overload, making it harder for individuals to distinguish between reliable sources and biased or unreliable ones.
The Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, was introduced to ensure a diversity of perspectives in media coverage. It aimed to promote balance and objectivity, preventing one-sided reporting. However, it was repealed in 1987, arguing that it violated free speech rights and limited the media's ability to provide diverse opinions.
Whether one is for or against the revival of the Fairness Doctrine depends on their perspective on the media landscape. Advocates for revival argue that it would impose greater accountability and provide a counterbalance to the increasingly polarized media environment. They believe that such regulation would foster more balanced coverage and reduce the prevalence of biased reporting and the spread of misinformation.
Opponents argue that the Fairness Doctrine would infringe upon the freedom of the press and interfere with editorial judgment. They believe that diversity of opinion is already present in today's media landscape and can be achieved without government regulation, through market forces and media literacy education.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not the explosion of available information has made media coverage better or worse, as well as the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, is subjective and depends on one's perspective on the benefits and drawbacks of increased information accessibility and government intervention in media.