[Photo: Source]Watched CNN's Wolf Blitzer having an interview with the ambassador of Syria to the USA, Imad Moustapha. He was asked about the Iran election, the protests and killings. Of course Iran and Syria have very good relations like USA and Israel.
Wolf Blitzer asked him if he condemns the killings and if now the relations between Syria and Iran would change, but the ambassador was evasive and turned the question to Wolf by asking, how come that Israel could kill more than 1000 people in Gaza and the US relations with Israel did not change? How come the Western media was being so focused on these events in Iran, but when Israel killed so many Palestinians during the Gaza War in 2008, that was not the case?
Well, that made me think. Does our media have double standards? Of course it does! And not only ours, it's every media. We could also say why the Syrian media extensively reports about Palestinian casualties and condemns Isreal, but does not focus as much on the killings of Iranians by their own regime. Double standards? I guess so. This has multiple reasons and I don't want to go into all that, because it could be a whole new post. Let's view the whole thing from another point.
I think we just don't buy everything the media says these days. That's why the internet became so big and more important than the TV in recent years (TV is dead.) We choose the source of our news, we read tweets and blogs to make up our minds. So, the ambassador was right about the media's double standard. But I guess he meant the old media, the news channels and news papers, who are mostly biased and unbalanced. I'm far from claiming netizens, and especially bloggers are journalists, but we do tell our opinion and we debate and we affect readers far more than the old media (at least that's my impression). That's people who put some effort in their blogging.
Suddenly everyone has something to say and to share. We are no more mere viewers. We are engaged. Besides blogs, we have forums, Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube and Wikipedia, sources where we can check, if someone is trying to sell us bullshit. And the mainstream media realized that and now they have i-reports, they're reading tweets and showing You-tube videos. They are totally clueless about how another universe (online) is thriving, while their profession is losing it's quality and influence. They are struggling to survive and unless they become more balanced and less biased and sensational, they will lose this battle. The future of the news is the internet.
Wolf Blitzer asked him if he condemns the killings and if now the relations between Syria and Iran would change, but the ambassador was evasive and turned the question to Wolf by asking, how come that Israel could kill more than 1000 people in Gaza and the US relations with Israel did not change? How come the Western media was being so focused on these events in Iran, but when Israel killed so many Palestinians during the Gaza War in 2008, that was not the case?
Well, that made me think. Does our media have double standards? Of course it does! And not only ours, it's every media. We could also say why the Syrian media extensively reports about Palestinian casualties and condemns Isreal, but does not focus as much on the killings of Iranians by their own regime. Double standards? I guess so. This has multiple reasons and I don't want to go into all that, because it could be a whole new post. Let's view the whole thing from another point.
I think we just don't buy everything the media says these days. That's why the internet became so big and more important than the TV in recent years (TV is dead.) We choose the source of our news, we read tweets and blogs to make up our minds. So, the ambassador was right about the media's double standard. But I guess he meant the old media, the news channels and news papers, who are mostly biased and unbalanced. I'm far from claiming netizens, and especially bloggers are journalists, but we do tell our opinion and we debate and we affect readers far more than the old media (at least that's my impression). That's people who put some effort in their blogging.
Suddenly everyone has something to say and to share. We are no more mere viewers. We are engaged. Besides blogs, we have forums, Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube and Wikipedia, sources where we can check, if someone is trying to sell us bullshit. And the mainstream media realized that and now they have i-reports, they're reading tweets and showing You-tube videos. They are totally clueless about how another universe (online) is thriving, while their profession is losing it's quality and influence. They are struggling to survive and unless they become more balanced and less biased and sensational, they will lose this battle. The future of the news is the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment