Friday, March 18, 2011

A Rare Absence of Media Bias

Nuclear plant’s emergency level up”- Washington Post

Devastation in Japan:A frantic effort to stem spread – The Boston Globe

I think it’s interesting to note that with all the media bias in America, there have been no significant differences in the way the media and press has been reporting the tragic events in Japan. In other words, as opposed to the murder in Itamar, no one has been raving about the unfair way that the media is covering the story there, because as can be seen from the titles of the story from three major newspapers, they’re all basically reporting the story the same way. The York Times and the Boston Globe even used the same adjective, “frantic,” to describe the efforts of the Japanese.
            This has to do with the fact that a lot of media bias isn’t necessarily intentional, but just a consequence of the fact that usually the journalist has some interest in the story. When a journalist is writing for the New York Times about something that occurred in Israel, chances are they have feelings on the matter one way or another. This feeling that they have then comes out in the way they cover the story, as we discussed in class.
            Japanese nuclear power is not a hot topic in the US, and thus the top stories that are being published about it don’t differ significantly in the way the story is being framed. Presumably, the journalists all the believe that the Japanese citizens had the right to live where they were and agree that this is a tragedy, and thus they have no reason to add their own biases to the way the story is presented.

3 comments:

  1. Very true Noah. I think additionally, the fact that this was a natural disaster sort of "prevents" any real noticeable bias. There is no ideological or politcal conflict of interest between the media and mother nature, therfore the facts are as they are. Mashe ein Kein by Israel or the middle east where the players are people(and jews), there is already a clash of perspectives.
    have a good shabbos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah its an interesting point that when there is no controversy over an issue, for example no one claims Japan hasn't been damaged, then perhaps bias is avoided completely. But i would suspect that in some way or another bias is still present. Perhaps the bias is not geared toward any agenda in particular, but still im sure you would see some differences in the way the stories are being reported if you compare two sources in depth enough. But perhaps this bias wouldn't matter, or perhaps you're right, it doesn't exist.

    I just don't think it's something you can necessarily rule out, after all, we are halfway around the world, how much do we really know about what's going on in Japan. Certainly there's something we haven't heard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think there is a definite trend with coverage on natural disasters - as the crisis develops, news coverage focuses on the efforts to save people, prevent more damage, etc. There isn't really a sense of judgment or "bias". Only later, when the experts will start to try to evaluate what went right and what went wrong with the recovery efforts, will there start to be pointed fingers and blame. (In the case of Japan, I haven't heard yet about any flaws or mistakes in the country's earthquake preparation plans or nuclear power safety protocols--it could be that they did everything right and things went wrong anyway.)

    ReplyDelete