Farhad Manjoo’s book “True Enough” details how the world perceives and dissects news. Interestingly enough, Manjoo illustrates how people see and manipulate news.
Two concepts that most intrigued me during the reading were selective exposure and selective perception. According to Manjoo, selective exposure involves choosing sources of information through preexisting biases and selective perception is when two people of opposing ideologies overcome their tendency towards selective exposure and choose to watch the same thing. Although, the individuals involved may still end up being pushed apart.
A prime example of selective exposure is comparing the coverage of Fox News to CNN’s about whether relief, in forms of medicine, food and money should be sent to Haiti. During the time of the Haiti earthquake, massive donation telethons and websites were pushed in the face of viewers on CNN’s coverage. CNN even hosted special segments, sending down Dr. Sanjay Gupta (who is also a medical reporter) to advertise the need for help and assistance in Haiti. Break downs of where the money was going and what charities are actually spending the money on was presented. However, when flipping to Fox News coverage, the amount of persuasive support was diminutive compared to CNN’s. Reports on the affect the earthquake had on citizens and what their lives will be like now were conveyed to audiences. More reports on actual damage and less on donation were noticeably present.
After jotting notes about the coverage for about two weeks and applying the Manjoo reading to my observations, I was now clearly able to tell the difference and range of opinions that make Fox News a right-wing channel and CNN a left-winger. Typically, liberals are willing to “extend a hand” and do affectionately care for the health and economic entities of other countries. Conservatives; however, are seen as brass and usually take pride in supporting domestic ventures and ideas. The fact that CNN’s coverage was clearly attempting to support and help Haiti earthquake victims while Fox News reported the affects as hard news makes a transparent connection to why left-winged thinkers have a bias to watch CNN and right-winged thinkers enjoy watching Fox News. In my opinion, selective exposure is one limiting reason why liberals and conservatives rarely agree on things.
An example of selective perception is the recent court rulings whether animal cruelty videos should be allowed to be broadcast. There are many opinions on this matter, between free speech advocates animal rights groups. The issue at hand was decided by the Supreme Court, striking down a federal ban on animal cruelty videos. Now although both sides, free speech advocates and animal rights group, see the disturbing nature of these acts, the difference in effort was whether the law goes too far. Initially, the law was created to ban “crush videos.” Crush videos are a type of fetish taping showing women smashing small animals with their feet or heels.
In 1999, the law was enacted, and the “crush videos” stop circulating. However, when an individual decided to shoot a documentary on dogfights, and show it to the public, he was indicted and sentenced to three years in jail. The selective perception idea behind this ruling, is that both groups, free speech and animal rights, overcame their biases for the humanity of animals and see the importance in protecting the rights of animals, although they distanced themselves on the issue of media broadcast. The animal rights groups still see the videos as inhumane and obscene for air and the free speech groups are selectively fighting for 1st amendment rights. It’s interesting to see how an issue, which has both sides caring for and adoring, can still separate one another for opinions that are divided from the big picture, humanity towards animals.
A fine, short example of selective exposure that recently occurred in Florida deals with the homeless. Spurred by hate-crimes against the homeless, Florida lawmakers voted to give the homeless added protections. The exposure part of this issue came in the arguing statements of a Punta Gorda legislative representative and a Coral Springs legislative representative. Punta Gorda rep says, the homeless are “bums” and they deserve no more protection than ordinary people walking down the street. The Coral Springs rep says, “Nobody is more vulnerable…They have no place to retreat to.”
After researching the statistics on the number of homeless living in the counties of Punta Gorda and Coral Springs, I found that Punta Gorda has drastically different and lower numbers than Coral Springs. Charlotte county, where Punta Gorda is only has 730 homeless, while Broward county, where Coral Springs is, has over 5,000 homeless. Because the representative and other citizens of Punta Gorda may see less homeless, they don’t welcome them into their community or see any reason why they deserve additional protections. The community of Coral Springs sees the need to protect these homeless individuals because they are a part of the community and may have an effect on society. The exposure to the actual individuals has created the opinions of each community.
In all of my courses I’ve taken in high school, college and other educational programs, “True Enough” has been the most interesting. Although I was skeptical of Manjoo, because he writes for a left-wing blog, his ideas and examples seem to show no bias. The book has made an impact on me, how I watch news and how I watch other people watching news. Manjoo’s expertise has allowed me to decipher what is being said and for what reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment