No one can deny that this Presidential Elections is one of the most erratic and interesting that the world has ever witnesses. For some, myself included, this will be the very first time they vote for a Presidential Candidate. With the candidates being who they are with the reputations they carry it will be a difficult choice for many,whether they are experienced voters or rookies, because there are so many conflicting ideas and biased interviews in the media. Most voters get their information from new sources on Facebook, Twitter and TV. Obviously these sources are biased and only show their favored candidates in a certain light. As if things weren't difficult enough, CBS edited an interview with Bill Clinton about Hillary's health on Monday September 12 (Marsh, 2016). Charlie Rose interviewed Bill Clinton about the status of Hillary's health, after she collapsed at a 9/11 Memorial Ceremony. In his original statement in reguards to her fainting Bill states "frequently- well not frequently, rarely- but on more than one occasion....that same sort of thing has happened" (Marsh, 2016). When the interview aired on CBS, the clip was altered so that the use of the word frequently was taken out. This was a deliberate tactic used to downplay the severity of Hillary's health issues. Time Warner Cable is one of the biggest media corporations in American and they own Warner Bros who is in partnership with CBS(Carpenter, 2015). On top of that, they have been donating money to Hillary Clinton since 1998.In total, they have donated $749,543 to Hillary Clinton from 1998 to 2016 ("Hillary Clinton,Top Contributors",2016). Due to their affiliation with Time Warner Cable, CBS has to sway coverage of everything Hillary in her favor. Of course this is no excuse and is ethically wrong. Americans have to decide who is going to run the country and if we do not have access to unbiased facts about our candidates then it is not fair. It may not seem like editing one word out of an interview isn't a big deal, but it is because it doesn't stop there.Who is to say that CBS or any other news company hasn't totally changed around what the candidates have said in interviews. Yes this was only one word, but it was a big word to change. There is a major difference between fainting frequently and fainting rarely. American voters have every right to know the health conditions of the candidate they are voting for because it could possibly change their mind. I realize that there is Freedom of Speech and the companies have a right to their opinions,but it is not right to force their ideals on their viewers. It is morally wrong and takes away the choice of the viewers. News is becoming less about reporting current events and more about telling the people only what they want to tell them.One could even argue that media has become a source of propaganda because instead of stating facts and letting the viewers make up their mind, they are shifting and tweaking the facts. This most recent interview on CBS is just proof of that and that is just outright terrifying.
; Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - 2016. OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https;//www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019
Carpenter, J. W. (2015). Top 3 Companies Owned By Time Warner (TWX). Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102215/top-3-companies-owned-time-warner.asp
Marsh, K. (2016). CBS Edits Out Revealing Verbal Slip From Bill Clinton on Hillary's Health. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https;//www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/09/13/cbs-edits-out-revealing-verbal-slip-bill-clinton-hillarys-health
Have I told you how sorry I am that young people like yourself are being subjected to THIS campaign for their first voting experience?
ReplyDeleteThere are innumerable times when pieces of any interview might be edited together - and certainly it's the case that these efforts WILL result in some "shading" or "spin" to the substance of the report. You do a good job discussing an instance when the editing process appears to be motivated by a political agenda (as opposed to something like length of broadcast or relevance of the comments). There is obviously an ethical issue - a conflict of interest - when any news-gathering organization is influenced by political affiliation. During the 2012 campaign, many questions were raised about the fact that some of the Republican candidates, including Gingrich, Huckabee, and Caine, were under contract with FOX. It falls to the people to remain vigilant against such "hidden" bias. The public tends to believe what they see broadcast on TV; though that tendency has been greatly reduced when you introduce SNM to the mix. As long as there is a professional media, you will find ethical conflicts like these.
Good stuff here! Keep working!