Old media (TV, radio, newspapers) and new media (SNS, web content, other media) #2
In this article, I would like to write about this theme again.
The trigger for the old media to discuss “new media” was the election of Motohiko Saito as the governor of Hyogo Prefecture.
This debate claims that only old media is the right media, without respecting new media as an equal media.
In fact, in a TV program after the election, they said, “TV is bound by law” and “we must continue to consider the public interest and broadcast accordingly,” and in another TV program, they said, “Once the election starts, we will guarantee fairness. We will not broadcast without fact-checking.”
We don’t understand why they are comparing “only during the election campaign.” That’s why the point of the discussion is off.
Many people don’t distinguish between programs that are during an election campaign and those that are at other times. Also, they continued to criticize a single election candidate until just before the election campaign. In this way, impressions of the viewers are created from the programs they watch on a daily basis.
1. Old media is not neutral and fair.
We believe that the fact that the old media have started to discuss “new media” by the result of the governor election in Hyogo Prefecture clearly shows that the old media have an intention.
It’s just our opinion, but we believe that people in the old media are aware that the old media is said to be “biased coverage”.
We think the first thing to do is to investigate why it is said that there is biased coverage.
Do people in the old media really believe that they are broadcasting in a fair and neutral way without any bias ?
If they believe that, then they won’t be able to stop the current trend away from old media.
(However, we would think that this is not the only reason for the trend away from old media. )
Old media includes not only TVs, but also radio stations and newspapers, including those in local areas.
And people think that old media is a single category, and don’t bother to deal with it separately.
For example, there are media companies that seem to be broadcasting programs that are in support of a particular political party or activist.
For example, some TV programs like variety shows broadcast content that criticizes specific people or political parties without providing any solid evidence, giving a bad impression.
Because of those kinds of contents, people have the impression that old media as a whole is “biased coverage”.
We are not denying that old media reports seem to support particular political parties or activists. They are said to be ‘biased coverage’ because they broadcast programs that seem to support particular political parties or activists while saying that they are ‘fair and neutral’.
We think that the old media should clearly declare their own political and ideological positions. If the political and ideological positions of each media company become clear, they will no longer be said to be “biased coverage”. Indeed, it will make it easier for viewers to choose which programs to watch.
Actually, in the United States, there are some stations that support either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and report accordingly.
If there are any legal issues with clarifying one’s political or ideological position, then it should be said that the law itself is out of touch with the current old media. Rather, we suggest that there should be active discussion on TV about that law, including politicians.
2. A sense of privilege that only old media is the right media
What became clear from this issue is that the old media has the attitude that “only they are the right media, and their claims are the right ones”. Also, for some reason, even the people appearing on the old media also think that “we are special”.
So, they think that only their own opinions are correct and that people who disagree with them should be excluded.
In fact, people involved in the old media have said that ‘it should create rules for new media’.
Furthermore, when a comedian appeared as a commentator, he pointed out that “there are people who don’t care about a person’s character as long as they can do their job. I interpreted that many of the people living there had that kind of feeling.”
From this comment, it is clear that those involved in the old media are thinking, “I am a special person, and ordinary person is fool. Well, this comment is discrimination rather than a sense of privilege.
In fact, the old media that accepts people who “deny the character of a specific person (if an ordinary person does the same thing, it is called bullying) and make comments that look down on the people who voted for them (if an ordinary person makes such comments, it is called discrimination)” and the sponsor companies that support them can be said to be equally guilty.
A stance of completely excluding people with differing opinions is a denial of diversity, and is behavior that negates one’s own comments.
Just as the media seems to have a political or ideological position, everyone has their own way of thinking.
But we think it’s the minimum requirement that they understand that there are people with completely opposite ways of thinking to their own before they go on broadcast.
Reference: Sports Houchi(2024/12/29)
https://hochi.news/articles/20241201-OHT1T51032.html?page=1
Reference: Sankei Sports(2024/11/20)
https://www.sanspo.com/article/20241118-LF3G4435TFH5TKVATHUTPXHPBY/
Thanks.
2024/01/05