The  speaker asserts that  rather  than  merely highlighting  certain sensational events, the media should provide complete coverage of more important events. While the speaker’s assertion has merit from a normativestandpoint, in the final analysis, I find this assertion indefensible. Upon first impression, the speaker’s claim seems quite compelling, for two reasons.

First, without the benefit- of a complete, unfiltered, and balanced account of current events, it is impossible to develop an informed and intelligent opinion about important. social and political issues and, in run, to contribute meaningfully to out democratic so&sscty, which relies on broad participation in an ongnirtg debate about such issues to steer a proper course.

The end result of our being a largely uninformed people is that we relegate the most important decisions to a handful of legislators, jurists, and executives who may or may not know what is best for us.

Second, by focusing on the “sensational’-by which I take the speaker to mean comparatively shocking, entertaining, and titillating events that easily catch one’s attention-the media appeal to our emotions and baser instincts, rather than to our intellect and reason. Any observant person could illustrating the trend in this direction-from bled local news broadcasts to The National Enquirer. This trend clearly serves to undermine a society’s collection.  tr and renders a. society’s members more vulnerable we should all abhor and resist the trend.

No related posts.