May 23, 2013

Media Workers and the Unknown Bias

LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 24:  Pauline Graham...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Many reporters, media workers and news casters are the only way that the general public gets their information about the world’s events and what is happening in the world. That means that the way that the media worker presents the story can really play an impact on what the person believes or doesn’t.

The news and newspaper are trusted media outlets that many people turn to as their trusted source of information. This type of thinking puts a lot of pressure on a media worker to be able to present that story with as must neutrality as possible. There can be no sharp tone to their voice, no condescending note when they are talking to others and certainly no aggressive measures while reporting the story.

This can be an incredibly hard thing to do especially when a media worker has such strong views on something. Say a person is required to report on the war in Iraq, but they do not currently believe that the war should be allowed to continue or even given the green light as far as funding and ability. They must cover this story or face termination.

Most news reporters will go out there and report the story to their best of their ability as a neutral source. However, they really are showing what side of the story they are on. There are non verbal communication skills that go into this type of story. Say a reporter cuts someone off, turns to the side a bit or talks quickly. These are all signs that they did not want to be there and that they are forced to portray a story that they did not want to.

The general public begins to pick up on these items and their ideas are influenced by what they see on the tv. So while a bit of bias is not intended it happens anyway and the public’s opinion could be quickly swayed by it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Looking Back Part 7, Transitioning

BABIL PROVINCE, IRAQ - JANUARY 25: An Iraqi el...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

In March 2008, Pentagon reported that violence in Iraq had been reduced by as much as 80 percent, but assessments by independent sources felt that number was inaccurate. Supposedly, there had only been 265 deaths since the “Surge” plan began 28 days previously, and yet the New York Times estimated that at least 450 civilians in Iraq had been killed in that same time period (and their estimates were typically lower that the actual number by as much as 50 percent).

Violence continued to die down throughout 2008, but it was found that this was not so much due to U.S. troops. In the years of 2006 and 2007, there were mini-battles going on in Baghdad for control of the city between the Shia and Sunni. The Shia basically kicked the Sunni out of the city and if any of them tried to come back to reclaim their homes, they were assassinated. Once that pretty much ended and the Shia were in control of the city, violence died down, with no involvement from the U.S. military.

On February 21, 2008, troops from Turkey entered Iraq soil, in the Quandeel Mountains region, to fight the PKK, a group that is fighting Turkey to become free and sovereign from Turkey and create their own country called Kurdistan. The Iraqi cabinet, as well as the Kurdistan regional government, called for the troops to withdraw immediately from the area. The Turkish troops withdrew only eight days after they entered the area.

The year of 2008 saw much of the control held by the U.S. being transferred to Iraq’s police and military. In the spring, the Iraqi military launched an offense against Shia militias that needed to be shut down. First began an operation against the Mehdi Army in Basra during the month of March. By October, that area was said to be secure. In May, the Iraqi army, which was supported by the coalition (that included soldiers from all nations involved to help), launched a fight in Mosul — the last major location of al-Qaeda within Iraq.

More to come as we look back.

Enhanced by Zemanta