Pages

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Agreeing with Keen on This One (Ethics)

In Jack Shafer's recent Slate article, "Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death," it appears he chastises several common news site usage of articles. Sites, such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com seem to make use of the most extravagant stories they can find to lure readers. Shafer states, "What the sites really love are sordid stories that can be presented as serials, if not cliffhangers."

I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common; they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire.

I don't care how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. The idea of "useless information" brings me to idea of "democratiziation" argued by Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amatuer. Granted, Keen specifically discusses topics such as blogging and using Wikipedia, but what happens when credible news sources report more on entertainment than political issues itself? I'm not a full believer of Keens arguement, but isn't what he's saying related to Shafer's point made in the article? It seems a majority of these outlandish stories appear not in newspapers or journals, but on the internet. News websites are reporting factual stories, but the type Shafer's criticise make for great table talk, not broadening the intellectual scope of the human mind.

No comments: