Day 3

I found it difficult to get my point across during our discussion about cover-ups in the media during class today. I guess that part of what I was trying to get at is that I feel the media should provide more documentary type pieces. I don't know how else to describe it. To me, these are pieces that are provide information about a topic that may not be well understood or known about. I really enjoy watching documentaries for their eye-opening nature. To connect this back to the media, I feel that providing more informational pieces would be a better attempt to address the root of the problem (terrorists kidnapping journalists as a general information piece) rather than just covering up stories as they arise. This is my opinion and I know that not everyone agrees with me on this and I'm OK with that. Back to the topic of documentaries, I'm only about half way through The Corporation and I had to pause it so that I could have some time to reflect, digest and process before returning for the second half. I find many documentaries (the more controversial and/or those that cover lesser known topics) to be emotionally exhausting to watch. I am often outraged at what I learn about and it takes some time to deal with that information. I honestly feel that this is why there are so many uninformed individuals in our society; it can be extremely painful to learn about the unjust things that are going on in the world. So, there's my two cents on those topics.

I enjoyed the readings for tonight though I found that one seemed to call another one out. I felt that the article, "A Program Teaches Students What to Believe in the Digital World" by Malaika Costello-Dougherty called attention to some flaws in the "Price of Misinformation in the Media" article by Rebecca Critchfield. To quote the Costello-Dougherty article, "Look for bias in news and information: Watch for loaded or inflammatory words. Does the author clearly have an agenda? Is more than one side of the story or argument presented? Is the subject of the report given a chance to respond?". While I appreciate the message about not believing everything that you read or hear and doing your homework, I found the Critchfield article to come across as angry and full of loaded and inflammatory words. While everything she was writing about may be absolutely justified, the way the she presents it comes off as more of a rant than a discussion about misinformation in the media. It makes it difficult to take what she says at face value. All of the emotion that comes across in the piece makes it feel less credible to me.