Read on Twitter
I see calls for media literacy - not treating news organizations as a whole but acknowledging that they are composed of opinion columnists, reporters, editors, etc.
I agree with this and with respectful discussions in general but... there is another side to this.
I agree with this and with respectful discussions in general but... there is another side to this.
When an entity behaves in a manner that is generally considered inappropriate how many are given that same consideration?
Do we excuse the behavior because 95% of the organization are honest and decent people?
Do we excuse the behavior because 95% of the organization are honest and decent people?
Did all the media coverage and the corporations who pulled sponsorship from WE consider the good charity work done by them and the no doubt majority of honest workers there?
Or did they label the actions of the few representative of the whole?
Or did they label the actions of the few representative of the whole?
When there is coverage of police racism or brutality does the coverage point out that the majority of police are decent people who have most likely never even drawn a weapon or engaged in any questionable behavior? Or does it call it merely "Racism in the RCMP"
When we had SNC coverage did the news coverage respect the calls for protection of all the workers in the company who had no involvement whatsoever in the wrongdoings or was it a call for the entire company to fall as a result of the bad deeds of the few at the top?
Whether they like it or not, the opinion columnists, and the actions of the rest of the organization that produces the news reflects on the whole - even if a particular reporter is excellent and does their job with dignity.
Do routine endorsements of the same political parties over and over again not taint the work of the entire news generation process? Does running the opinion of the same extreme columnists over and over not reflect on the news organization?
When honest factual articles are placed immediately beside overblown rhetoric naming mass corruption, impostor, religious fanaticism, etc. does it not colour the overall appearance?
When the same article with the same info is interpreted entirely differently news organizations all on the same day are we to ignore the potential reasons for this difference in interpretation?
Even the very best of reporters, sadly, are tainted by the company they keep, or work for in this instance.
It's hard for consumers to ignore the slant organizations put on the news and not wonder how reporters accept their work being integrated in such a publication.
It's hard for consumers to ignore the slant organizations put on the news and not wonder how reporters accept their work being integrated in such a publication.
And not all reporters are above putting their slant on things too.
It's not right to grow vile and angry merely due to disagreement with the coverage of news that doesn't support your view.
It's not right to grow vile and angry merely due to disagreement with the coverage of news that doesn't support your view.
But it's also not right for news organizations to engage in clear political slants in their overall coverage and then act above it when consumers of the news complain about it.
Even if the individual reporters are generally honest and ethical in their work.
Even if the individual reporters are generally honest and ethical in their work.
