Daniel's Directory

I think that this issue is one of a lose-lose situation for journalists, news-writers, and other members of the media. The arguments were, on the one hand, you should not cover these groups because you don’t want to give them the attention they desire. On the other hand, you should cover it because there could be something big or potentially harmful that could happen at one of these rallies. The thing we talked about in class is the idea of, the media being the enemy of the people. When we talk about a situation like this, either way you look at it, people will think journalists are the enemy of the people. Covering the story will make people think the media is the enemy because of the fact that we are giving them publicity that they so desire. However, not covering the story will draw criticisms of trying to cover up news events from the American public, therefore making us the enemy of the people.

The examples mentioned in this piece were the Unite the Right rallies and the Westboro Baptist Church protests. Another example that came to mind with this was the Black Lives Matter movements, rallies, and protests. I think the media did a great job of covering those events, because they would cover them when it got to a riot/problematic level, but would leave them alone for their regular protests. I think that’s the way we as journalists need to approach these kind of groups and rallies. When these rallies and protests threaten lives and become dangerous to everyday citizens, that is when we need to get involved to inform people on what is going on. When there is no threat we should not be covering.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/12/638018004/how-the-media-covers-white-supremacists

Trackback URI |