Argument A is arguing that free news is bad, unreliable, and
poorly informed. Arguing that those of us who read free news are reading the
wrong news. Argument A even mentions the opinion that the presentation of the
article makes it more valid. It argues that the information we’ve had for
years, old dictionaries and encyclopaedias, are ‘replaced’ by online sources,
making it out to be a bad thing. It also argues that the presentation of
newspapers is better and online information is often ‘surrounded by ads for the
latest pop star’s hit’.
Argument B is arguing that free news is good, with less bias, and is more reliable. It argues that people who want information should be able to get it. It also argues that news sources are better if they aren’t owned by upper middle class men. It includes the fact that anyone who wants to start a blog can, and implies this is a good thing. Free news helps keep the poor informed about anything they want to know. Argument B also says that people don’t need to care any more about the journalists that lost jobs, than they do about the miners or the shipyard workers.
I instinctively side with argument B because, above anything else, people who want to be informed about things should be able to find free information. Argument A even expresses the opinion that the presentation of the article matters, and implies that the news in mainstream media is presented any better than it is on free sources. I disagree with this because often the front cover of most newspapers will have pictures relating to stories about celebrities, and articles most likely to effect the stereotypical white male, and fits something about real news in some tiny sport which you have to search for to find.I also don’t believe that we’d be better off relying on old dictionaries and encyclopaedias for information, especially considering how quickly newly found information can be out of date.
I also don’t agree that sources replacing sources is honestly a bad thing, because in our culture it is quite common for websites that are popular to end up biased by sponsors, which usually makes the sites unpopular again, and then something better comes along. Information should be free because when its free its easier to tell which sources are reliable, and written by people who care about what they’re writing about, against the sources that are purely produced to make money and please sponsors.
Based on the research I have done on post-colonialism, I have found out about Angela Barry (a person who understands and elaborates on the negative effects of colonialism.) I think Angela Barry would agree with argument B because the access to information is important despite race, nationality, or finical situation. Another reason that people who believe that colonialism had a negative effect would agree with argument B is that the people or companies that sponsor – and have power over – main stream media closely represent, and are probably the descendants of those that benefitted from colonialism. Angela Barry has stated that main stream media’s representation of ‘the other’ is centred on stereotypes. The ‘trouble maker’, the ‘entertainer’, and the ‘dependant’ are the three main stereotypes that people get from the representation of ‘the other’ in mainstream media. Information which is based on stereotypes is less likely to be reliable because stereotypes are misinformed.
Based on the research I have done on feminism I believe that a feminist would agree with argument B. This is because in mainstream media (A) women are often objectified and made to appeal to the ‘male gaze’. However, this is less likely to happen in free news websites or information sources. This is because anyone that has something to say can start a blog. Most feminists enjoy sharing news, information, and opinions on feminist issues. A common feminist issue which most people are aware of is that women often get paid less for doing the same job as a man. This leads to women generally having less money, therefore they are less likely to spend money on news, keeping the poor uninformed. Also, because of mainstream media and dysnification women are far more likely to spend money in the pursuit of being beautiful.
Based on the research I have carried out about Marxism I think that Marxists would agree with argument B. This is because I have found out that Marxists believe that contemporary society is organised so that the proletariat is divided, distracted and deceived in order to further its exploitation and its acceptance of the status quo. I believe that the mainstream media is the main tool which is used to keep the proletariat misinformed and divided. Media effectively encourages our culture to hate ‘the other’, this keeps the 99% of society distracted from the bigger problem, capitalism.
Marxists suggest that we are encouraged to adopt false needs, that these oppress us, and that an even distribution of wealth and goods is necessary. As I understand it, the main creation of false need comes from main stream media and the adverts which are all over the newspapers.
A postmodern view point would say that all forms of news have some kind of truth in them, because it’s the writers, and the readers who believe it, real truth. However, the news is more reliable and trustworthy if it comes from an non-sponsored individual source. Therefore a postcolonial view point would agree with argument B. ‘Much of what we consider ‘true’ or ‘real’ is in fact to be distrusted as uncertaim or unreliable, just another fiction. These overarching belief systems, which Jean-Francois Lyotard calls ‘matanarratives’ are no longer valid or trusted. The way we receive information about global events (such as wars, terrorism, disasters) makes them blur with fictionalised accounts, and that accounts of such events ‘always reach us in a fictionalised form’ Baudrillard refers to this as ‘The dissolution of TV into life, of life into TV’.
Argument B is arguing that free news is good, with less bias, and is more reliable. It argues that people who want information should be able to get it. It also argues that news sources are better if they aren’t owned by upper middle class men. It includes the fact that anyone who wants to start a blog can, and implies this is a good thing. Free news helps keep the poor informed about anything they want to know. Argument B also says that people don’t need to care any more about the journalists that lost jobs, than they do about the miners or the shipyard workers.
I instinctively side with argument B because, above anything else, people who want to be informed about things should be able to find free information. Argument A even expresses the opinion that the presentation of the article matters, and implies that the news in mainstream media is presented any better than it is on free sources. I disagree with this because often the front cover of most newspapers will have pictures relating to stories about celebrities, and articles most likely to effect the stereotypical white male, and fits something about real news in some tiny sport which you have to search for to find.I also don’t believe that we’d be better off relying on old dictionaries and encyclopaedias for information, especially considering how quickly newly found information can be out of date.
I also don’t agree that sources replacing sources is honestly a bad thing, because in our culture it is quite common for websites that are popular to end up biased by sponsors, which usually makes the sites unpopular again, and then something better comes along. Information should be free because when its free its easier to tell which sources are reliable, and written by people who care about what they’re writing about, against the sources that are purely produced to make money and please sponsors.
Based on the research I have done on post-colonialism, I have found out about Angela Barry (a person who understands and elaborates on the negative effects of colonialism.) I think Angela Barry would agree with argument B because the access to information is important despite race, nationality, or finical situation. Another reason that people who believe that colonialism had a negative effect would agree with argument B is that the people or companies that sponsor – and have power over – main stream media closely represent, and are probably the descendants of those that benefitted from colonialism. Angela Barry has stated that main stream media’s representation of ‘the other’ is centred on stereotypes. The ‘trouble maker’, the ‘entertainer’, and the ‘dependant’ are the three main stereotypes that people get from the representation of ‘the other’ in mainstream media. Information which is based on stereotypes is less likely to be reliable because stereotypes are misinformed.
Based on the research I have done on feminism I believe that a feminist would agree with argument B. This is because in mainstream media (A) women are often objectified and made to appeal to the ‘male gaze’. However, this is less likely to happen in free news websites or information sources. This is because anyone that has something to say can start a blog. Most feminists enjoy sharing news, information, and opinions on feminist issues. A common feminist issue which most people are aware of is that women often get paid less for doing the same job as a man. This leads to women generally having less money, therefore they are less likely to spend money on news, keeping the poor uninformed. Also, because of mainstream media and dysnification women are far more likely to spend money in the pursuit of being beautiful.
Based on the research I have carried out about Marxism I think that Marxists would agree with argument B. This is because I have found out that Marxists believe that contemporary society is organised so that the proletariat is divided, distracted and deceived in order to further its exploitation and its acceptance of the status quo. I believe that the mainstream media is the main tool which is used to keep the proletariat misinformed and divided. Media effectively encourages our culture to hate ‘the other’, this keeps the 99% of society distracted from the bigger problem, capitalism.
Marxists suggest that we are encouraged to adopt false needs, that these oppress us, and that an even distribution of wealth and goods is necessary. As I understand it, the main creation of false need comes from main stream media and the adverts which are all over the newspapers.
A postmodern view point would say that all forms of news have some kind of truth in them, because it’s the writers, and the readers who believe it, real truth. However, the news is more reliable and trustworthy if it comes from an non-sponsored individual source. Therefore a postcolonial view point would agree with argument B. ‘Much of what we consider ‘true’ or ‘real’ is in fact to be distrusted as uncertaim or unreliable, just another fiction. These overarching belief systems, which Jean-Francois Lyotard calls ‘matanarratives’ are no longer valid or trusted. The way we receive information about global events (such as wars, terrorism, disasters) makes them blur with fictionalised accounts, and that accounts of such events ‘always reach us in a fictionalised form’ Baudrillard refers to this as ‘The dissolution of TV into life, of life into TV’.
John Fiske says ‘taste is social control’, this relates to
argument A and B because taste is fed to us through media, often through
newspapers. They facade around pretending to be relevant news reports, when
more often than not the news that gets reported is actually that this famous
person did this, or has something to do with how we should be presenting
ourselves, or what we should be buying. We are force fed these ideas about what
is ‘cool’ and worth spending money on, while they pretend its news. At least an
unpaid individual blog, or online video, doesn’t pretend to be something it’s
not. There can be blogs on makeup and beauty, gadgets, food and health, and
anything else, but it’s always honest about what it’s telling you. These blogs
are also far more likely to be honest and informative reviews, not biased by
sponsors newspapers which are trying so hard to get you to spend that they lie.
There are also a lot more honest reports of things actually happening, they
might not be the most amazingly written, but they’re usually honest accounts of
what really happened. The adverts around the page bare no relevance with the
content of the text, and the reader can very easily ignore the adverts and
concentrate on the content. Whereas, in newspapers the news and the adverts are
almost blurred into one.
To sum up, as we can see, all of these viewpoints would agree
with argument B more than argument A. This is because most of these viewpoints
believe that everyone should be allowed to understand what’s going on in the
world for free. This is because a lot of the news links with feminist or race
issues. A lot of these viewpoints will make the point that you shouldn’t have
to pay to be informed, and you don’t need to pay money to people who already
have loads of money just to have information.
