Blog #32

Carl's Sunday morning blog talks about how international news can be twisted in favour of media attention.


                                           

We live in a world divided by complex problems like the recent Afghan voting fraud, the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and stories like Israel troops ‘ill-treat kids’ that appear all over international media channels.

Some of these stories are conspiracies while others based on truth are hard to accept especially when one is involved or well informed, and sees how twisted articles can spin the truth out of context. The real terror behind the scenes is often biased from what we read; affecting main screen viewers who are quick to condemn, and often their assumptions are based upon what they read and others who influence them easily.

Most people are aware that the media stretch beyond fact into obviously exaggerated cases of hardship, and extensions of the truth to juice up what is going on all around the globe. The problem lies with the reporters, editors. and publishers who all stride to impress pushing forward to reach the mainstream.

Principles of media criticism are generally overlooked since it’s hard to find publishers prepared to spill the beans on individual cases because it doesn’t go down well criticizing each other in this way. Publishers stretching legitimacy in my humble opinion contrive to put history in jeopardy, so should we stand for it? That depends on individual knowledge and desire to interact and set the cards straight.

Without clarifying my source I for one have recently been exposed to twisted facts and an extension of the truth, which has made a laughing stock of one race, but then minorities usually are picked on endlessly. It just so happened that I had made it my interest to study the history of this group, so when I read the online article it upset me how the editor had allowed such tripe to be printed for the general public.

It had no consideration to the truth behind the long winded situation, and focused on finding an angle to criticize the defender as opposed to the oppressor. It also attacked the defender as though they are the bullies when indeed they are defending their rights. Laughable, as the article used international law and human rights, to defend the oppressor, and subsequently put blame on the defender. Who wrote it?

All I could do is read with disgust and become conscious that many readers would take this as an indication and interpret it as though the defender was really the oppressor. It is an absolute shame; the majority reading it would misinterpret the course of events based on these allegations. Talk about distortion! 

My view to culture clashes and political opinions is to make sure history is read in depth before simply prejudging and believing anything read or viewed in online or offline media channels. Don't assume the obvious!

MAIN SITE