Can the media ever relied upon to convey the truth?

The media is usually our primary source of information on the world beyond the doors of our homes. Almost piece of news we receive, which we suppose is true, comes from the media. However, as more analysis goes on, more evidences are appearing to show that the media is not anymore reliable. So can we really still rely on the media for the truth?

The media in some countries are controlled by the government, thus it is not hard to wonder if the news the audiences are subjected to are totally true and neutral. The government may have distorted some of the facts, or provided only the partial truth , so as to gain support from its citizens. And this usually occurs only in countries that are governed by dictator-style governments, whereby the authority has control in almost every aspect of the nation.

However, this also occurs in supposedly fully democratic nations. Although the governments do not explicitly show that they have direct control over the media, there are usually laws present to manipulate these. Thus, media corporations would conform to these laws in order to stay in business. And in the process of conforming to these laws, some of the truth in the news might be removed.

Take Peoples' Republic of China for instance, although they are not a true democratic nation, their media is all supposedly 'privatised'. Thus it is assumed that the government would not intervent in its affairs. In a recent television programme aimed at finding new talent, the broadcasting company had initally planned to allow audiences to send in sms votes for their favourite contestants. However, the Chinese authority immediately informed the corporation to abolish the plan or be banned, as they feared that giving Chinese citizens a taste of democracy ( in the voting of contestants) might result in an uprising in the communist state. Hence it is evident that governments do have control over the media to some extent with the use of laws.

Although some governments restrict the media greatly in order to gain voters' support or for other selfish gains, sometimes, such restrictions are necessary. Sometimes, ignorance is better than knowing the truth. With these restrictions, the government can probably help maintain the stability and peace within the country.

One such country which requires restriction in its media is Singapore. Singapore is a largely multi-racial country with many races each forming a significant proportion of the nation's population. Thus, the media must be restricted at times in order to keep the peace. Especially in the world today, where terrorism is constantly a great threat, Singaporeans must be united. Any news that would breed racial prejudice and resentment should be banned from Singapore in order for her people to stay united. If the media is not restricted, scenes of the riots regarding the Danish cartoons last year would occur again.

In some countries where the 'freedom of the press' once reigned, this is fast disappearing. Like according to 'Great Lies of the American Press' by 'David R. Hoffman', the media today is driven by popularity, prejudice and profit.

News agencies would 'censor legitimate and detailed news stories in favour of sensationalistic and superficial tripe' . Thus the truth in many things are distorted in order to make the issue more appealling to audiences, which increases the agency's popularity. With the increased popularity and viewship, more commercial endorsements would coming knocking, which in turn equates to more profits.

Furthermore, some journalists are paid by the government to help write articles that would encourage citizens to do things that would boost the success rate of government policies. Isn't it all driven by the greed for profits?

In addition, some news casters or even news agencies are prejudice in almost all ways possible. According to the above stated article, a journalist Babara Walters, 'sanctimoniously announced, to the applause of her predominantly white audience, that she would not interview former football star turned actor O.J Simpson, who had been acquitted of murdering his wife and a family friend.' However, what she forgot was that she had earlier interviewed Robert Blake, an actor also acquitted for murdering his wife. So what conclusions could be drawn from this? Well, Babara was sub-consciously racist, since she refused to interview a black man after she had interviewed a white guy who had committed a similar crime. Sometimes, such prejudice is evident when censorship is based on personal biases of editors. For example when an editor refused to have an article published that would have gotten his personal friend in trouble.

Thus, with all the negative aspects of what trully drives the media, and all the government-controlled media, it is hard to truely rely on them to convey the truth.