In chapter 13 McPhail talks about the publics’ interest and states that “the rubric of public interest seems to belong to that genre of euphemisms that includes the public welfare, the common good, and the national interest. In part, the problem with the concept is its idealistic and pristine nature as demonstrated in Walter Lippmann’s comment that ‘the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently,” (pg. 163). It is the job of media professionals to achieve this public interest which can cause conflict if the audience is not satisfied with what is being provided. Because of this conflict many argue that the job of journalists should not be considered a profession. Is this because the journalism standards have changed? There is the fact that there are other sources for audiences to use which will increase competition.
Recently the Associated Press chose not to mention the famous Paris Hilton in any of their stories for over a week and wanted to find out if this would be noticed or if it would make no effect on the interest of the audience. What is your opinion on whether the Associated Press (Or any Media Profession) conducts research in a way that is substantial to distribute a ‘story’? Do you feel Paris Hilton’s non-coverage was ‘newsworthy’ and do you feel it is the job of the Associated Press to conduct a non-coverage research on a woman who is famous for being famous? Is this of interest to us?
As opposed to this example of news provided by the Associated Press, there is an article about Hilary Clinton. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php As you can see this story is presented with direct quotes and proves to show good research techniques. Why isn’t news such as this covered as widely as stories about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole that are not going to affect our country?>
An economist Keith Brown found that media ownerships were providing “inconvenient facts,” but again we can come back to question, is this allowed as the freedom of the press? Or are these ‘Media Professionals’ meant to provide us with harder information that would be beneficial?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56008.html
Jen Copela
