Influence Of Journalists To The Tv Audience example essay topic

New sIs it prime time or all the time? Media influence has become a social mainstay in contemporary society. Not only do newspapers, radio, television and magazines strive to inform and entertain, but they also hold a significant power over what people believe. Since its inception, the standard of media presence was long a tool of integrity and fairness. News persons and entertainers may have embellished here and there in order to put more flavor into a certain piece or program, but for the most part, there was a distinct significance to an inherently honesty portrayal.

In the vast dimensions of the world of journalism, it is the bread and butter of the everyday broadcast. Hardball with Chris Matthews could be one of the most obvious illustrations of a controversial news show for the media. Not only does it consist of detailed analyzing over politics and politicians, but also of interviews and debates with media connectors such as New York Times journalists and columnists, and attention c ravers in general willing to lend their opinion in order to create controversy on the show. This host often takes up character like in sitcoms. While a report's main focus is to sum up the days events, relating in general to politics in the United States, opinions are discussed.

And although this should not be what audiences focus on, it is. The influence of Journalists to the TV audience is inevitable. Although they present up-to-date news, their input and analytical perspective is what people tend to capture and convey to the public. In a sense, they create a world of news and controversy through their words. Moreover, Chris Matthews does just this in his nightly program of fiery debates and overviews of the day's political spectrum.

Through inside sources, factual debating, gaining trust from the audience and revealing specific opinion, he influences audiences nationwide, and in a way, takes over the minds of the audiences and the media, while still being a journalist and, at the end of the day, just "doing his job". Every night at 7 pm ET on MSNBC, many around the continental United States tune in to watch Hardball with Chris Matthews, as opposed to the flip side comical shows such as Friends or Seinfeld. Most who choose to watch this news show want to be caught up on the day's activities, relating mainly to politics and foreign negotiations, as well as the day's relevant affairs. After personally tuning in to watch on Monday night, I was able to capture how this journalist creates his broadcast. He begins by detailing the daily news and his opinion on each matter is quickly given. He then brings in the sources.

These are of key importance for two main reasons. For one, they are usually inside sources to the lives of politicians and what really occurs behind the White House doors. But also, they become sources to the public. Someone who they can say must know what they are talking about since they are part of our community, yet are involved one way or another with the president.

"All news shows, in a sense, are re-creations in that we hear and see on them are attempts to represent actual events, and are not the events themselves". (Goshgarian, p. 190) For example, when President Bush revealed the Budget Plan for 2005, following his State of the Union Address, Chris Matthews had his sources ready to speak. These included Senator of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, as well as the writers for New York Times and The Post. First, they give a brief recap of his plan. This included factual evidence such as tax cuts for education, and no insinuation of money towards Social Security or Medicaid. They also discussed the fact that the cost of the war in Iraq was not given.

This is information that the public wants to know. However, it is the opinion that is given from these sources that the audience tuned in will probably retell to their co-workers and family members the following day. In continuance to the example: Bush did not want to discuss his budget for Iraq, which prompts most to believe he may be hiding something. But if he insists that he has nothing to hide, and then why not tell the public? Of course this topic is discussed and debated during the first 20 minutes of the telecast. According to white house. org, presidents have, since the time of the current President's father, "never discussed how much a war would cost... and it would not be brought up now, especially not by this president".

But of course this isn't said on hardball! They quickly attack the president, indirectly of course, saying that he in fact is probably hiding the truth behind this war we are in with Iraq and its surrounding countries. Which side would you trust? Chris Matthew's Hardball touches many points when it comes to politics.

It would be hard for many, especially republicans, to believe that he or any of his fellow journalists say, without gaining their trust first. It could be said that this journalist has a "background" which precedes him. For example, he covered the 2004 elections, giving insight and detail to every action as it occurred. He also discusses both sides when it comes to political debates, giving viewers the chance to see both sides; of course afterwards giving his one-sided opinion, as most journalists tend to do. He also gains viewers trust by having guests on his show who give facts as they give opinion as well. If anything gets people's attention, it's facts and opinion in one statement.

For example, the chairman of the Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs committee said (in relation to the budget plan), "The budget ignores reality... it cuts homeland security, ignores education, and gives no sum of our costs in Iran or Iraq". It is clearly an attention-getter when you can have factual evidence to back up an opinion. Yet again there's another way of influencing and stirring up media attention in the public eye. While politics and the President of the United States should not be a topic to be flippant with, it is the attention and exaggeration given by most journalists today what make our world such a controversial one today. Is it a news program or a gossip market? Today most news shows do just that.

While reporting up to date occurrences, it's the media attention which they crave most. It's not that they invent news, but it is moreover taken to a higher level. Through opinions of various journalists, as well as a bit of twisted factual evidence, journalists have the power to influence most viewers who tune in nightly, for the most part to catch up on current events. It's the words that come out of those journalists that will likely be regurgitated tomorrow on elevators and offices around the world. If it only stopped there; however, most journalists are influential enough to end up on the cover of people magazine or the NY Times. So in the end, are they journalists, or Fiction writers?