Not
Necessarily the News
How
would you distinguish entertainment from news?
How
do media practitioners determine which events of the day are newsworthy and which
are simply entertainments--and thus have no significance to the political and
social life of the nation?
Setting
a parameter is extremely difficult, if not impossible. News agencies, like entertainment
outfits, rely heavily on the patronage of the audience. Surveys have been used to
determine how listeners and viewers calibrate the credibility and popularity of
television and radio networks. With these as determinants of their seeming credibility
and popularity, networks have to work with vast pressures to deliver the “news
of the day” in a very entertaining manner. The contents may refer to matters of
national or local significance, but the mode of their delivery should cater to
the sway of the opinions of the listening and viewing public. TINA. There is no
alternative if the news program has to stay on the air and be able to compete
with other programs.
However,
news could not be delivered merely to entertain people. Neither is its primary
objective to inform the public. Its primary objective is the formation of
public opinion—to serve as a springboard of public discourse on matter of
political, social, cultural and economic importance. Anything below this
purpose maybe considered merely consequential, if not truly insignificant.
This
is the job of news agencies. They are bound to deliver information to help the
formation of public opinions. Their relevance in an ideal society cannot be
discounted—democracy depends upon the level, nature and vigor of public
discussion. Without them, people would likely be deprived of information vital
to their personal and social lives. Mediocrity, not democracy, will prevail if
they are not free to do the work entrusted to them by the society.
What
news struck public attention in the recent past? Of course, survey may validate
any wild guess but validation or verification is in itself problematic. How
does one determine whether the news of the day is significant, let’s say, to
the political life of the nation?
Take
for instance the President who had been ascribed as one with the lowest trust
rating in the Philippine history. She was unpopular. Nobody takes her seriously
when she talks about government reforms. She could not inspire change as she
represents what others considered as the black side of the force. Yet, when she
speaks, her words are news—regardless of whether one would later find her
ridiculous or lying to her teeth. Why is this? This is so because despite the
stigma that was casted upon her name, she used to set the national agenda—the agenda
of the day. And what she had said before were news nonetheless.
That
is what the news should do—set the agenda of the day and provide the
springboard for public discourse. This separates entertainment from news of the
day. Entertainment could not provide any agenda for the nation—as such, television
and radio networks should treat them politically and socially insignificant. They
are gossips! And despite the hearsay nature of most news articles, they could
not be relegated to mere gossips. They are politically and socially
significant. They are source of healthy, and even violent, public discourses.
They are news not trivialities!
So,
do you know now why the recent “media events” are not necessarily the news of
the day? Ponder on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment