The world of media is truly surprising and keeps on astonishing the nation every day with both evident and unpredictable things’ layouts. Although the majority of people tend to ‘swallow’ the information as it is fed to the viewers and readers, there are those who do not want to become the victims of commercialized mass media. Mr. Merrill happens to be a wonderful communicator of this idea in his Professionalization:
Fusion of Media Freedom and Responsibility. He tells why and how mass media has transcended an ethic line due to freedom traced by governmental institutions; and how the latter helped mass media become what it is today: irresponsible, unauthoritative, though free.
The author skillfully presented his evidence throughout the paper and was very persuasive as per the supporting facts’ choice. The article does not seem to be very politically oriented. Rather, Merrill unveils the connection between the political situation changing and the overall reaction of mass media to it. He speaks about communitarians: ‘This new emphasis on social solidarity and cooperation has tended to neutralize (to some degree) the opposing tendency toward individualism’ (Merrill, 2005). Indeed, although the initial purpose was social equality, hence democracy, hence freedom, people (namely the mass media industry) started reacting somewhat unpredictably. The media ethics problem arises from external oppression not necessarily noticed right away. The way the author traces the connection is very clear and cohesive.
Moreover, transitions between the paragraphs are wonderfully carried out because every time the author masterly leads a reader to the question at the end of the paragraph and answers the subconscious question right in the next paragraph’s first sentence. For example, Merrill tells about media having a low level of respect from the nation and right then he answers how to achieve better results: “Fusion” is the big word here” (Merrill, 2005). Of course, there were so many arguments I would want to strictly put forwards but the next sentence I read debunked my argumentation. For instance, I was thinking that the ethics of individuals could not help avoid mass media sources. However, I was wrong and obviously, mass media does not care about some individual’s ethics unless he/she can pay for commercialized news.
Nevertheless, I think the evidence could have been utilized in another way, although everything is pretty clear anyway. However, many readers percept information better if it is presented all the way around: first it should be revealed what the problem and solutions to it are, and then the emergence and development of the problem should be described.
Another article under consideration is called Mirror on the Wall: Who is the Best Communicator of Them All -Al Jazeera or Al Hurra? by Jihad N. Fakhreddine. This is a work that presents pieces of evidence for the channel Al-Hurra to be a better communicator of truth to the Arab nation. It is interesting how the author conveys his ideas through step-by-step guidelines to what the channel does and why they do it. Interestingly, the thing the reader notices when reading the article for the first time is the overall better management of Al Hurra sponsored and lead by the US authorities. The paragraphs are all cohesive and written. However, when you read the article for the second time you clearly understand the thought that did not leave you subconsciously: the role of the US in it, implicit understanding.
To be more exact, the author masterfully did his job gradually presenting what the channel does to reach 80% of the public but there is a little thing that starts bugging you when you read: “to steal audiences from TV channels that are spreading lies” (Fakhreddine, 2005). To be more exact, the article not only gives an understanding of why Al Hurra is a better communicator but also it provides information about the US being noble and politically correct by spreading the right news to the Arab nation and giving them the chance to decide what is true and what is false on their own. This is done for purpose of showing what means the freedom of speech and the truth within this right.
The author lays out the ways of communicating the ideas by Al-Hurra and Al Jazeera. He states the slogan of the latter: “The opinion and the opposite opinion” (Fakhreddine, 2005); this, however, does not identify which opinion is meant to be opposite and whether there is a dominating opinion. He seems to be trying to call their bluff.
The cohesiveness between the paragraphs is adhered to. There are some English grammar inconsistencies, however. Unlike the previous article, the author here relies on the ethical agenda of the channel taking truth as a starting point. So, I would want to argue this to some extent. Truth is a very alternate notion in the contemporary political world and it will be pretty hard to denote all facets of it for the Arab nation due to social and political differences with Americans. Therefore, it can be assumed that it is close to impossible to state which channel is a better communicator.
References
Fakhreddine, Jihad. (2005). Mirror on the Wall: Who is the Best Communicator of Them All – Al Jazeera or Al Hurra? Global Media Communication, 2(6). Web.
Merrill, J.C. (2005). Professionalization: Fusion of Media Freedom and Responsibility. Global Media Communication 4(6). Web.