My assumptions for why these 2 sites aren't used very often is due to their extreme bias. While its fine to have bias, news articles focusing too much on one side or the other tend to be not great when connected to journalists as it's a sign of unprofessionalism and yellow journalism especially when it is as blatent as this. But even when going over the ANTIWAR.com, a site that claims to be the best source for anti war news, has strong opinions about their opinions and expressions towards their criticisms of the government. Therefore, most news businesses will not want to cite them or introduce them as they will blow up much controversy for the news programs as well as the governments themselves. These sites are probably not well known due to examples of how government controlled expression in the past. Perhaps strong anti-war voices are also drowned out by governments not just from the past, but also in the present and most news crews do not want to come under scurtiny from the government from strong conservative/anti-war propaganda. They also do not want to be showcasing flat out yellow journalist propaganda either.
I personally believe this is unfair and drowns out a lot of voices. Though at the same time, informing the media with two different stands both from radically different perspectives is a smart idea as well. Critiquing the government is always best, but I think the issue lies in how the government can change from this critique. As such representing both sides of the voices is important for helping the nation have a better government.
No comments:
Post a Comment