No, I'm not ingesting a narcotic. It is a rational argument. My argument does not try to justify any of Fox News' journalistic practices. It merely intends to explore why Fox might be able to use such a statement and how the network can get away with it.
Most importantly, Fox News wants you to believe that all of its reporting is fair, balanced, and just. Reporters are supposed to be flies on the wall, waiting for news to happen. They report on the events when they do materialize. They tell us the fallout of the event any other relevant information. To keep their objective position in the news world, Fox proclaims that "We report, you decide." That statement gives Fox some buffer room to say whatever they want to say. As a viewer, I decide whether the story is true, whether the facts are accurate, and whether I want to believe what I'm being told. On this statement alone, Fox lets go of some of their authority or integrity and places it upon the viewer. If viewers don't like what Fox told them, well it was up to the viewer in the first place to decide if the facts were correct. It keeps the fly on the wall effect if you will.
A perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media may also drive Fox to declare themselves fair and balanced. It is quite clear that their stories are not fair and balanced. More often than not they leverage the republican or conservative cause and dismiss the democratic or liberal one. The liberal point of view may not even get airtime, but if it does, the story is framed in a manner to undermine liberalism and praise republicanism. Fox may do this to counter its competitors which it views as liberal. Therefore, Fox News is balanced... it balances the other networks, but it does not balance its stories. Thus, it is also fair. If other networks can "do" what they "want," why can't Fox, it's only fair.
Historically, journalism was NEVER ever objective. It was ALWAYS biased. Newspaper barons like Hearst and Pullitzer developed a mainstream newspaper market in order to increase circulation. If you didn't offend anyone, you might get more readers. It also meant more advertising dollars because there are more readers. Journalism was political before that newspaper revolution. Perhaps Fox news is returning to a time when news was not an objective source of information.
In a nutshell, that is my argument for Fox being a fair and balanced network. It doesn't mean that Fox is a genuine source of news, it just means that the network may be trying to tackle a larger issue instead of making sure each and every story doesn't offend anybody.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Corporate Image or Corporate Responsibility
First of all, welcome to my new blog. I am going to attempt to post somewhat regularly here my musings on some grappling issues. Of course, if not obvious enough by the title, the first one will be about corporate image and corporate responsibility.
At school, I am taking a media studies program. For the most part, the faculty take a left leaning socialist view of the world. Most of my professors damn the man for all the nasty evil things he does like under pay his employees while overworking them, exporting jobs to the third world, and manipulating consumers to buy into their product. I won't discount anything that they're saying, because I do think a lot of that is true. I shamefully worked at Wal-Mart last summer and let me tell you, do they ever try in every way to assimilate you into Wal-Mart culture to the point where you'd worship the ground Sam Walton walked on. Fortunately enough for me, I could see through the bullshit, due in part to my own thoughts on the company and my program. That aside, the point is the man does not look out for the greater good of society, but will do whatever it takes to increase the bottom line each quarter.
Speaking of the bottom line, I was at a presentation featuring McDonald's president Louie Mele (oddly enough, the faculty of health sciences sponsored this presentation). He talked about McDonald's seeing its first loss a few years ago. To keep its lead in the fast food industry, Mele talked about how the company wasn't listening to its customers and the company wasn't with the times. In order to compensate, Mele said that the company introduced a contemporary new slogan, "I'm Lovin' It," salads, and other "healthy" food options. He said while the salads weren't hot items, he said the options needed to be there so that the health conscious people would still want to eat at Wal-Mart. Clearly, the bottom line is more important here than is the corporate responsibility. I'll touch on the corporate responsibility in a bit.
Contrary to his efforts to get more customers into his stores, in response to a question from the audience about childhood obesity, Mele said that its the customers who choose to go to McDonald's and that the kids do not go to his restaurants, but rather the parents take them there. I do give him credit there, until I'm reminded of his company's advertising campaigns. Happy Meals always come with toys, and to make sure you're children are loyal, tell them that they can collect 6 new Barbies or 6 new Hot Wheels cars, where only one is given away every week. The ad gets the kids wound up and the parent inevitably appeases the kids by heading to McDonald's once per week. Is it just me, or is that a form of telling the public to come to McDonald's regularly? I know Mele himself didn't advocate fast food every day, but the company ads certainly do. Therefore the bottom line is still important to McDonald's Canada.
Now onto corporate responsibility. Sure, McDonald's may do a lot of nasty things despite it's claims that its alright to eat in moderation (which I would agree with if I didn't feel like a sack of poop after having a meal there). With all the profits that McDonald's takes in every year, a large amount of it goes towards Ronald McDonald house. The house provides a place for families to stay while their children are receiving medical care of some form and couldn't get it in their community. Without this house, some of these families, possibly strapped for cash, may not be able to afford to go to the hospital with their children. If you think about other corporations, there are a bunch of services that wouldn't exist if it weren't for their generosity. This then begs the question, is it corporate image or corporate responsibility?
I would argue it is a bit of both. The company can't be seen to be doing all these bad things. However, does the company need to have their name plastered on whatever their sponsoring? That becomes advertising under the guise of charitable support. Giving money to charity is something that companies should just do without an advertising spectacle.
-Peter
p.s. I've got a free big mac coupon if you want it.
At school, I am taking a media studies program. For the most part, the faculty take a left leaning socialist view of the world. Most of my professors damn the man for all the nasty evil things he does like under pay his employees while overworking them, exporting jobs to the third world, and manipulating consumers to buy into their product. I won't discount anything that they're saying, because I do think a lot of that is true. I shamefully worked at Wal-Mart last summer and let me tell you, do they ever try in every way to assimilate you into Wal-Mart culture to the point where you'd worship the ground Sam Walton walked on. Fortunately enough for me, I could see through the bullshit, due in part to my own thoughts on the company and my program. That aside, the point is the man does not look out for the greater good of society, but will do whatever it takes to increase the bottom line each quarter.
Speaking of the bottom line, I was at a presentation featuring McDonald's president Louie Mele (oddly enough, the faculty of health sciences sponsored this presentation). He talked about McDonald's seeing its first loss a few years ago. To keep its lead in the fast food industry, Mele talked about how the company wasn't listening to its customers and the company wasn't with the times. In order to compensate, Mele said that the company introduced a contemporary new slogan, "I'm Lovin' It," salads, and other "healthy" food options. He said while the salads weren't hot items, he said the options needed to be there so that the health conscious people would still want to eat at Wal-Mart. Clearly, the bottom line is more important here than is the corporate responsibility. I'll touch on the corporate responsibility in a bit.
Contrary to his efforts to get more customers into his stores, in response to a question from the audience about childhood obesity, Mele said that its the customers who choose to go to McDonald's and that the kids do not go to his restaurants, but rather the parents take them there. I do give him credit there, until I'm reminded of his company's advertising campaigns. Happy Meals always come with toys, and to make sure you're children are loyal, tell them that they can collect 6 new Barbies or 6 new Hot Wheels cars, where only one is given away every week. The ad gets the kids wound up and the parent inevitably appeases the kids by heading to McDonald's once per week. Is it just me, or is that a form of telling the public to come to McDonald's regularly? I know Mele himself didn't advocate fast food every day, but the company ads certainly do. Therefore the bottom line is still important to McDonald's Canada.
Now onto corporate responsibility. Sure, McDonald's may do a lot of nasty things despite it's claims that its alright to eat in moderation (which I would agree with if I didn't feel like a sack of poop after having a meal there). With all the profits that McDonald's takes in every year, a large amount of it goes towards Ronald McDonald house. The house provides a place for families to stay while their children are receiving medical care of some form and couldn't get it in their community. Without this house, some of these families, possibly strapped for cash, may not be able to afford to go to the hospital with their children. If you think about other corporations, there are a bunch of services that wouldn't exist if it weren't for their generosity. This then begs the question, is it corporate image or corporate responsibility?
I would argue it is a bit of both. The company can't be seen to be doing all these bad things. However, does the company need to have their name plastered on whatever their sponsoring? That becomes advertising under the guise of charitable support. Giving money to charity is something that companies should just do without an advertising spectacle.
-Peter
p.s. I've got a free big mac coupon if you want it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
