Coherent Descriptors of the News

COHERENT DESCRIPTORS
To be a news media that is a ‘coherent narrative’ means, in my mind, to logically tell a story. News medias have many different ideas of what it means to be coherent narratives of the news. Carlin Romano states that “If journalist understood…that way they present to the reader is not a mirror image of the truth, but a coherent narrative of the world that serves particular purposes, what the press covers could be more flexible and better suited our needs as readers and writers” (Romano, 1986, p.42 ). I disagree with Romano on this statement. I believe if we, as the viewers of the media, were coherent descriptors, we would be able decipher what the media is reporting and make are own decisions of what are the facts.
I have three reasons to believe it is up to the viewers, not the journalist, to be coherent descriptors of the media. It is up to the audience because (1) we must understand what we read is not a mirror image of the truth, (2) the media is a form of technology, and (3) the options for the audience to receive other coherent narratives of the same story are more possible then ever before. The viewers must recognize that simply because something is published in the paper does not make it the absolute truth. Journalists are humans and people see the same scenario with different lenses. This can happen in how the reporter interrupts a story. Journalists admit to cleaning up quotes from sources for grammar and sentence structure and this softens up their ‘factuality’ (Romano, 1986, p.64). Journalists also manipulate the facts by choosing one word rather than another (Romano, 1986, p.68). This does not mean journalists should have the privilege of having a different written language then the rest of us, but rather the audience must recognize interpretations change from one source to the other.
Just like sources deferrer, so does technology. Media is a form of technology and the equipment they use is constantly changing. Also, how we choose to accept what is factual is evolving. Before humans had the power to write, the news was spread by sound. When the facts were only spoken, instead of written down, once the sounds were pronounced, they disappeared (Ong, p. 32). People accepted a story as fact, even though the story may have been altered multiple times from speaker to speaker. Today reports have many technologies available to assist in reporting a story. We, as viewers, also have these technologies to aid us in choosing which version shows us the facts. Whether the audience chooses to view these stories by watching the news, going to a website, reading the newspaper the following day, or asking an eye witness of the account, the point is, today the viewers has many available tools and we should not limit ourselves to solely one technology to receive news.
Lastly, the options for the audience to receive other coherent narratives of the same story are more possible then ever before. One may argue how can an audience member receive different sides of a news story when Rupert Murdoch owns media outlets that can influence ¾ of the world’s population (Outfoxed, 2004)? For people to be coherent descriptors of the news, we must explore our news options. If ¾ of the world decides to rely on Rupert Murdoch to tell the news, then we must accept his company, FOX News, as a factual source. If, on the other hand, the audience decides to watch FOX News and mix it up with one other news source, for example NPR, then one person has the potential to multiple their interpretation of the news. For example, Outfoxed showed these two examples to demonstrate the influence one news source can have on your perception of an event (Outfoxed, 2004):
(Graphs not yet available online)
By only watching these two news sources, instead of relying on just one, an audience member now has “on the one hand, on the other hand” accounts of the news (Romano, 1986, p.78). I am not stating that by watching NPR and FOX News, the audience will always get different perspectives of the news, but I do believe different media outlets will view the same story through separate lenses.
As the viewers of the media, we need to be the coherent descriptors that decipher what the media is reporting and make are own decisions of what are the facts. The news room is not like the court room. Journalists are not upheld to the facts like eyewitness in court (Romano, 1986, p. 64). Until the public realizes we can not rely solely on one news source for information, not all journalists will try to be mirror images of the truth. Some day, technology may allow for all of us to be at the scene of the crime, but until that time comes we must be critiquing the facts with the options we have.




Reference
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism - Fox Attacks Special Edition. 2004. The New York, NY. Disinformation Company.
Ong, M. 1982. Some Psychodynamics of Orality from Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Retrieved on Blackboard November 21. 2008http://jesuitnet.blackboard.com/courses/1/COML509_B1_11775_FA08/content/_82073_1/embedded/ong1.pdf?bsession=2210910&bsession_str=session_id=2210910,user_id_pk1=2864,user_id_sos_id_pk2=1,one_time_token=C3F8590804B1DCD6CF95C3B4A23E99B1
Romano, C. 1986. The Grizzly Truth about Bare Facts.Pantheon. NY. Retrieved on Blackboard November 21, 2008. http://jesuitnet.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_1494_1%26url%3d