Fake News
News generally means recent and relevant information. Journalists receive, research, then broadcast these pieces of information to the public through various sources such as radio, television, online or printed newspapers, etc. Journalists, however, are not the only ones able to broadcast news. Public relations practitioners can also broadcast news. The difference is PR has an agenda of using the news to sell a product, or to create a better public image for a corporation. In other words, information brought by PR is corporately-funded and primarily suited to their clients’ needs. Journalism’s primary goal on the other hand, is to serve the public’s best interests and right to know; even if there are harmful effects to their employers (Turney).
To help put this into a better perspective, I found an article from the website of the International Food Safety Network. Although this site is no longer being updated (a new, up-to-date one is now available to access), this particular article in this site gave me good insights on how exactly corporations’ fundings are negatively affecting research that should and could have been beneficial ecologically, economically and socially. The body of the article does not directly tell us what is bad, but the implication is quite clear. Since the research and corporate practices take many years to complete, the age of this article makes no difference in explaining the results of such practices. I hope this article helps you further understand this much debated topic of fake news.
Most corporations that fund news are not sincerely doing it as a public service. More often than not, their “news” relates to a product they are selling, or to give themselves a better reputation. They simply want viewers to agree with their “news” and therefore will:
- Buy [more] of their product, or
- Trust that company
In my opinion, this is propaganda, not news. Propaganda looks and sounds like regular, unbiased news for the average citizen’s well-being, but there is always a hidden agenda of self-glorification and/or profit when corporations are involved. (We are in a capitalistic economy after all, where man goes to great lengths to increase profit.) These corporately-funded news are only meant to convey a certain idea or view, and thus aren’t news at all, but simply an opinion on a current issue (in which they try to make us agree with them). Some can see through the propaganda, but most cannot (which is why such hypes work, with the desired results). Unfortunately, most corporations can “disprove” (bribing, more corporately-funded news, or whatever else is up their greasy sleeves) those who try to show the public what is really news.
Thankfully, we have alternative ways to express the truth: the internet, where the average Joe or justice-serving organization can get his voice heard and the news spread without all the excessive, mind-warping sugarcoating (think of it this way: too much sugar = bad stomach ache). Be careful though when going through such sites, as some are just as fake and believable as non-virtual scams.
To help put this into a better perspective, I found an article from the website of the International Food Safety Network. Although this site is no longer being updated (a new, up-to-date one is now available to access), this particular article in this site gave me good insights on how exactly corporations’ fundings are negatively affecting research that should and could have been beneficial ecologically, economically and socially. The body of the article does not directly tell us what is bad, but the implication is quite clear. Since the research and corporate practices take many years to complete, the age of this article makes no difference in explaining the results of such practices. I hope this article helps you further understand this much debated topic of fake news.
Works Cited
Turney, Michael. “Ethics Codes for PR.” Practicing Public Relations. 21, November 2006. <http://www.nku.edu/~turney/prclass/ethics.html> 7, October 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment