 |
| Pocock, Bill (2006) "untitled" via Blogspot Public Domain |
In our culture, we value credible and ethical information. Being a recent article, the controversy is on certain failures where journalists have not written ethically or have lost their credibility. This issue relates directly to what we, as an audience in our culture, value. Generally, as readers, we assume (or hope) that the information reported in media is truthful and that the journalist or person reporting that information has a moral responsibility. Personally, as a reader and journalist, I value credible information and believe that credibility results from following a strict ethical process. Although it is okay to write opinionated and biased work, you do not want to provide false information or inappropriate/offensive content to your readers. By not following an ethical process, I believe that the author loses their credibility which can be seen in various examples such as the Rolling Stone UVA rape article, or other examples listed in Powell's article.
2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share with the society? Why not?
I share all the values that are related to the article. The main focus of the article is about credibility and ethics in media.
3. If the text is written from a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?
I have the same cultural values as the author and her intended audience. So this question is N/A.
4. If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the values changed over time?
This article was written in the past year, so the values have not really changed. However, Powell does argue that with time, people are becoming more and more skeptical about what is reported in the media and how that reflects directly on how journalists should go about reporting information, particularly sensitive or controversial information.
Reflection:
After reading Jenny and Rachel's posts, I realized that a lot of our culture's values, in relation to our article's topics, are conditional. Meaning, our cultural and societal values vs. our personal values are not always the same and can change from topic-to-topic. I found this particularly when reading Rachel's post on DNA research and being able to edit DNA to prevent hereditary diseases and conditions and to possibly be able to edit your baby's physical traits. When reading her post, I realized that her topic is very controversial depending on ones personal values. Similarly, in Jenny's post, while the cultural values in relation to her article may be shared with majority of the audience, it is the personal opinions that change their response. After reading their posts, I feel as though I could protest/disagree with some of the claims made in the article I chose when referring to the audience's cultural and personal values. However, my personal values align with the values of my article.
While I am not a journalist, I value credible information as well. I do not see what a writer gets out of providing false information. While it may give them fame for a second, it will eventually blow up in their face. If I was in the field of journalism I would feel offended if another journalist provided false information. I shared all the values with the author of my article as well.
ReplyDeleteAddie, I definitely agree that as a culture we value credibility. That's why we have to cite our sources and provide evidence for our claims, otherwise nobody would take us seriously. As a journalist, this is especially true. I also shared the same values with the author of my text. However, I do believe views and values are ever-changing, so we should take that into account as we analyze cultural values from articles that are not super recent. You don't have to worry about that too much since your article is fairly new, but just as a side note, that's something to keep in mind.
ReplyDeleteI feel like a major part of the credibility of the media issue is the fact that the any form of media is directly profiting from any kind of attention. This inherently creates a conflict of interest, which is commonly seen in tabloids: a lot of articles are nothing short of lies, simply because sensationalist lies sell.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely relate to this issue in my text's analysis since my texts deals with politics, which also have some inherent biases: a politician that acts against his/her sponsors will simply stop receiving donations.