When I think about why anti-war material has become hard to come by in mainstream news, I don't think I have a definitive answer. I would guess that, in part, it stems from the majority of narratives or agendas being pushed out by the media of modern-day. News industries and organizations tend to only report on what they feel is in line with how they want the public to perceive them. As someone who does not watch the news very often, this issue presents itself as a bit complicated to me. However, due to my limited existing knowledge of algorithms and how a media company's relationship with an audience solidifies, it is not a far leap to assume that 2024 news outlets have strayed away from establishing themselves as a reliable source of public information, and have taken on the perception that catering to one political stance is of more importance.
Here is the site that I am referencing below:
AntiWar.com
Looking at this site and seeing all of the different reports indicating that war is very much prevalent across the world, and making it very clear that America has played a substantial role in the epidemic, makes me ask questions about the current news media.
If it is true, that in a sense, anti-war messaging, has indeed been replaced with pro-war news, or news that showcases a narrative that is in some way opposite, I suppose I'm only left to ask why? What outlets specifically have played a part? Again this goes back to my inferior knowledge of modern-day politics, but I am beginning to think of possible explanations. For one, I would think that it depends on how a company or news outlet wishes to be seen or perceived by current-day audiences and viewers of news through TV, websites, social media, etc.
I did manage to find the Washington Post's Policies and Guidelines page:
Read Here
This page stood out to me, as I think it is relevant to thinking about where the intentions of news outlets lie, and where they should lie. As well as who is the best choice in deciding how they operate. NOTE: This is not an endorsement of The Washinton Post, as I say, I do not keep up with politics, nor am I a consistent follower of this outlet. However, I thought their policies and practices were relevant to discerning this topic of conversation.
At the top of this page, is a quote that I found intriguing:
"Democracy Dies In The Darkness"
To me, I think statements like this are relevant to this conversation. To revisit the original problem, if in fact anti-war media has been intentionally replaced by current modern-day outlets, I think is a representation of democracy dying in the darkness. If you ask me, the job of a news outlet that is responsible for producing information for the public, their number one priority should be impartiality and honesty in their material.
If anti-war has been intentionally silenced and made difficult to find, then, in my opinion, and to my limited knowledge, would be to drop any preconceived agendas or playacting to whoever that company believes to be most agreeable in the context of today's modern political climate. However, that said, I do not believe this should result in the elimination of opinion pieces. If a reporter/or writer wants to share an opinion with their audience, that should be considered to be common practice. The important part is to not mistake their opinion publishing as any form of fact.
Again, I do not consider myself political, or educated on current events ( Unfortunately) This blog post is simply my perception or interpretation of the proposed issue of antiwar reporting being silenced by modern-day news outlets. I'm sure there are others with superior opinions on the subject matter, but this one is mine.
I think this 2021 article from the Reuters Institute For The Study Of Journalism, drives the point home:
No comments:
Post a Comment