The conflict between Chevron and the people of Ecuador is certainly one that needs to be covered in the news media. There are places for that sort of discussion which are appropriate and necessary. A segment on the television show 60 Minutes would be a place for such talk. Chevron itself reporting on the matter is not appropriate.
New media is a scary thing. The very fact that a major oil company, Chevron, can put together a piece of "news" and then distribute it concerns me for a number of reasons. First of all, Chevron deals with oil and gasoline, not journalism. They are not qualified to be journalists. They know this, and we know this. So what do they do? They PAY someone to do this story to counter the one that 60 Minutes was in the midst of producing. I wonder what sort of slant that story had to it? All of their interviewees or scientific experts were "Chevron Consultants" which basically means that Chevron hired them to say what Chevron told them to say. That is not objective journalism. That is simply a major corporation abusing its power and resources in a weak attempt to manipulate public opinion. While I do not believe that a truly 100% objective journalist is out there, I know that what Chevron did was not objective in any way, shape or form.
In my opinion, 60 Minutes may be the closest we currently have to the idea of the "Murrow Standard." After all, Don Hewitt, a "Murrow Boy" came up with the idea for 60 Minutes. It is a hybrid between Murrow's Person to Person and See it Now news broadcasts. Some may argue that the show showed a bias in favor of the people of Ecuador and that they cast Chevron in a bad light. Well they certainly didn't help Chevrons image. But it is not my opinion that journalists must be strictly objective. I actually believe some persuasion in journalism is necessary. If in fact 60 Minutes did all the proper research, and interviewed people from both points of view, and they found that what Texaco did was wrong and that Chevron should indeed have to pay this $27 billion lawsuit then the world needs to know about it. There is nothing wrong with picking a side as a journalist. That is what I, as a reader or viewer, expect that person to do.
The problem lies in the fact that just about anyone can become a "journalist." Anybody with a blog, a youtube page or a facebook account can update the world on whats going on. But that doesnt mean what they are broadcasting to the public is at all accurate. Unlike real news organizations, people posting things on the interent dont have to fact check their sources or information. Now people may like online websites such as the Drudge Report or the Huffington Post because they tend to lean in certain political directions and people like to read or watch things they like and agree with. BUT, a majority of the public takes what they hear on news commentary shows or blogs as facts when they are merely opinions. That is my biggest issue with all this new media. I can not imagine Mr. Murrow being to pleased with the current state of most news media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment