One More Quick Thought about Yesterday

Would all Americans have been better served if our media outlets focused more on reporting the news than on editorializing it?

This entry was posted in Social Media, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to One More Quick Thought about Yesterday

  1. Kamal Bhalla says:

    I agree that it may have been a lot better if the media outlets did focus on what the news was rather than adding extra effects, and details that were not even present in the story. There was a lot of talk about things that Hilary and Trump did, and not much about what they were DOING. And the things that were said about both parties, were not always professional, yet very entertaining. The news can (should) be entertaining, but I believe that there is a limit to everything, and the news as passed that limit a long time ago, and need to come back.

  2. Jackson Sparkman says:

    Donald Trump would’ve have gained such a popular standings if the major News outlets hadn’t covered his every breath. They seek to gain a popular viewing and for such an outrageous candidate they got more and more views. This unfortunately turned this race into who could get enough airtime by being outrageous.

  3. Landry Filce says:

    I think that America would be better off if news outlets focused on reporting news. The dramatization of this election contributed to Trump’s win, in my opinion. Everything he said was reported on in great detail and turned into a joke. Practically no one who reported on Trump believed he had a real chance at winning the presidency and gave him more and more free airtime. They encouraged Americans to think of the election as an edge-of-your-seat tv show finale, instead of the actual fate of our country at stake. I think people not taking Trump seriously contributed to his win. Not even his biggest supporters thought he would get this far, and I think it is safe to say that the media played a large role in putting Trump in the White House.

  4. P. Patel says:

    If the media focused on the actual election rather than what Clinton and Trump were doing in their personal or past life then they could have made the election better. However, it is important knowing if our future president is doing something bad, but that was all the media cared about. For example, the media only cared about Clintons emails and why Trump did not pay his taxes for the longest time. Instead of worrying about how to get America out of debt.

  5. Brianna Ladnier says:

    Despite being upset with the press, I do believe the press has freedom to report on all aspects of this election. However, I do agree with Mr. Sparkman. Many people got wind of Trump do to his staggering media coverage, and his success in the election would have dwindled drastically if media was done in an objective manner.

  6. Campbell Rolph says:

    I think that our news finds what will either entertain the public, or shock it. I mean, whenever we turn on the Jackson area news back home there is either a story about a shooting downtown or “What you don’t know about ______ will shock you!”. It is kind of a shame that so much of what we hear from our news is, to be frank, not exactly news, or, if it is, it isn’t the news that effects our daily lives, because that kind of news is “boring” or “bad for ratings”. As a news outlet, whether it be public radio, news station segment, or even talk show host to an extent, your job is to inform the public about what matters. And if you aren’t doing that, then you aren’t doing your job.

  7. Meagan Pittman says:

    The bias from the media provided no favors on either side. News outlets were very obviously tilted in one direction, but whatever they wrote was solely about the other candidate. I usually keep up with the news, and whenever I would watch coverage of the presidential debate it was always filled with mud slinging, exaggeration, and jibes at candidates. I barely heard anything about their plans for the country or how they would better it. If the news actually focused on what the candidates wanted to accomplish, people would have been more likely to vote rationally.

  8. Vera L. Taire says:

    Our news services are biased and largely contributed to the outcome of this election. Neither of the candidates that made it to the end were anything more than a joke- this election season was a massive reality show. It honestly reminds me of the bachelor and bachelorette series, minus the dreamy wedding ceremony at the end. I don’t know if our country was the bachelorette or one of the contestants though.
    I doubt either Hillary or Trump would have made it to the end without the extensive media coverage they received.

    • P. Patel says:

      I agree with you. The only reason why Hillary and Trump were a big issue was because of the media coverage. If the media didn’t cover Hillary and Trump then a lot of people would not have been interested in the election.

  9. Devon M says:

    Media definitely had an impact on this presidential election. However, like everything else, this presidential election is keeping up with the times. The more that technology and social media are becoming a daily routine in people’s lives, the more politics are going to be centralized around it. The bad part is, there is no way to know whether or not everything on the media is true in whatever case for Republican or Democratic candidate. Most people would look at media centralization with concern, but I think that it a great way to get not only the adults interacted with the election, but the youth as well.

  10. AK Mynatt says:

    I think media had an impact on this election more than ever. You could log on any social media account and instantly see a picture of both presidential candidates being made fun of. This could have most definitely made a huge impact on the younger voting age being that they are constantly on their phones. At this point, who knows how the election would have turned out if it were not for social media. It was more of a race to see who could be more publicized than who possessed the ability to run a country.

  11. John Bowlin says:

    If the media actually reported the news, without having to bash someone every minute, the election would have turned way different than it did. The only thing the media did was editorialize what the people wanted to see. It is like they did it to entertain us. That is not the point of news and media outlets. It seems to me they could not let go of the past. Any little snip of anything that came up the president elects’ past came up, that was all you could see. The news outlets did not report what Clinton and Trump were actually doing in the election. The news did not point out their policies that could change our country forever. I don’t know about you, but seeing what Donald did in 1970 does not affect how he should be portrayed now. Same goes with Hillary. If the news could actually report the news instead of this negative entertainment bashing one or the other, that would be great. I think it needs to be more professional the next time it comes around.

  12. Darby Meadows says:

    I think it would be better for the media to report news, not adding in their own thoughts. Strictly facts! Though I understand that everyone has the right to speak freely, if the media claims to be educating the people, then they need to use facts! With this past election, people were just talking badly about candidates. I never really heard facts on why the are qualified for the position, which is a shame. The media should inform the people, not drown them with opinions.

  13. Madalyn Coln says:

    The media is definitely a catalyst for mostly all negative things, in my opinion. During the election season, I couldn’t handle it– it seemed like they always covered a verbal boxing match between a Trump supporter or a Clinton supporter. That the fact that the media inflates certain things out of proportion cannot cause anything worthwhile, either… for example: If the media had been less involved in making the candidates look bad, I think that Americans would be more satisfied with the candidates. I personally do not recall the media portraying Clinton or Trump in a very positive light; rather, they wanted to talk about the email scam or whatever came out of Trump’s pie hole. (for the lack of a better word).
    Basically, if the purpose of the media was to toss around the dirty laundry, then it has fulfilled its job well.. maybe a little too well for our benefit.

  14. Sarah Swiderski says:

    Considering that most Americans aren’t critical thinkers, I’m not sure how much of a difference this would have made. Of course, logic would lead one to believe that less bias in the media would yield less bias among the public. However, there’s always going to be someone wanting to bend the opinion of others-isn’t that what modern politics is built off of? My point here is that ignorant people will always be ignorant because they are incapable of thinking for themselves. So, if the media hadn’t manipulated the election coverage, someone else would have stepped in and connected the dots how they pleased.

  15. Aurelia Caine says:

    Most definitely! The media really makes the election worse. Instead of focusing on what’s really going on and reporting the truth, they try their best to make it seem interesting for views. A lot of people our age barely know a lot of the election as it. Once they look on media, their point of view adjusts to what they see. Whether it is a meme or a numerical comparison between to the two, they automatically change what they think without knowing the actually truth. The media makes Hillary and Trump seem like superstars if you ask me.

  16. Kendall Wells says:

    If the news would have been reported and not editorialized, I believe the election would have turned out differently. Instead of focusing on the future, media outlets focused on the candidate’s pasts in order to gain attention from watchers/voters. This election was treated as a reality tv show by some news outlets, by only reporting terrible things about each candidate. The country was so worried about the past, we weren’t thinking about the future and that’s where we went wrong.

  17. Steven says:

    Media outlets, whether it be the news or social media, plays a huge role in American society. They determine how many Americans perceive the world and influence their opinions, often in bad ways. For those who identify with the right wing, they feed off of misinformed outlets such as Fox News, Breitbart, and Right Wing Watch. These outlets aim to do nothing but halt the progression of humanity and feed cynicism into the American people. While the left wing claims to be holier-than-thou, it is just another corporatist state-run media outlet. All of the major news outlets are owned by the richest corporations in America, such as Comcast and Disney. These corporations also own many politicians who pander to them – they are just puppets to lobbyists. With the way things have gone this year, it is unlikely that America will be able to recover from its pitiful state anytime soon. That is why one should always look into a story and not take everything that the media tells you with certainty and trust, especially regarding politics and any story that could be subjective.

  18. Kayla Patel says:

    Yes! I feel like the media only focused on the past or stupid things the candidates did if they focused on what they were saying they would do for their presidency maybe people would have voted more on that. I feel like they only voted for the person the dislike the least or the one that did the least wrongdoing.

  19. Briana Johnston says:

    The media plays a huge role in elections because of how they shape our views of the candidates. Because they report what they want to report (mostly the worst things they can find in order to get the most viewers/readers), most of the news is biased in one form or another. Instead of letting people develop their own opinions, the news forces ideas into the heads and once they’re there, they’re stuck. The only news I heard about the candidates is when they did something negative like the deletion of the emails or the fights between supporters of the candidates. If the news focused on straight facts instead of including opinions in order to sway the views of the people, the election would have possibly gone a different way.

  20. Amber Jackson says:

    Yes, because then it would require people to think for themselves. 😮 Most people are very bias, not that its horrible but it is very noticeable. I feel like editorializing things would be okay if there was an opinion or viewpoint given for both sides. Would we be better off is debatable…….Editorializing the news also helps people hear about or be interested in the news. I think if we stopped doing that we might lose a big percentage of whatever audience its pointed towards. Honestly, I feel like there could be a dystopian book written about this idea somewhere.

  21. Lydia Holley says:

    The outcome may have been different. Media needed to focus on the news not expressing their opinions on who should win the presidential election. The media focused more on Trump and Clinton’s past, rather than the things they are currently doing to help the country.

  22. Erin Owens says:

    The public would definitely benefit from the media posting the truth. People tend to focus on one or two main rumors that are spread by biased news networks. The whole country would benefit if the public was told the whole story and people were able to choose a candidate based on their personal beliefs instead of small bits of information the networks focus on

  23. Jagger Riggle says:

    The media tries to only report to one extreme side to try to sway people the way they want them to. The media is not supposed to be biased, but they are clearly anything but unbiased. I do think that it would have changed a few of the numbers, but I do not think it would have changed the outcome. The media reported a lot against Trump, and sometimes a lot against Clinton, but clearly that did not change what people thought about him. Again, the numbers might have changed, but only slightly unless a big state like Florida would have gone to Clinton. It would have been a closer race, but due to the electoral system, I don’t think the outcome would have been much different.

  24. Samuel Patterson says:

    The media has the freedom to do whatever it chooses. Americans just have to be smart enough to choose a unbiased source. Until Americans want fair news, the news will be full of trashy stories.

  25. Shuchi Patel says:

    I believe it would have been better if media outlets focused more on reporting the news than on editorializing it because some people will agree with the outlets. CNN was advocating Clinton for the longest. I believe the outlets (clearly) wanted to hype people up for the election for views. However, people should make their own choices on what they think is wrong and right. Media outlets should not persuade a person to vote for a certain individual. Honestly, both candidates were flawed. The media outlets still tried to find a way for one of them to outshine the other.

  26. Anna Smith says:

    If the press did not have to freedom to dilute the truth of what is expressed, it would never force people to seek separate insight. It gives celebrities to motivation to do what they’re supposed to do, as general role models and representatives of the nation. On local levels a certain level of deception in the public’s eye isn’t always necessarily for the worse. The dilution of chaotic situations prevents further chaos from breaking out, such as information regarding war or diseases. In other situations, on the other hand, it is important to recognize that certain issues are seen from a very narrow perspective. Suppression of important information regarding political positions and justice being served can heavily warp the views of everyone, but most importantly, in my opinion, the youth. Missing relevant details should be frowned upon by a generation too dumb to realize it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *