It came to my attention that my opinions were taken into dissection, and I honestly appreciate that because as I disclaimed – these are my opinions.
I wrote in what I felt was objective, having said that, I was presented with views on how it seemed as a conformity to patriarchy mainly because my posts gave the impression that I was writing against the girl’s actions; when instead I was questioning about whether they both warranted the attention that the coverage got them. This comes from what is available for me to base on for my opinion which were the slander and judgement by netizens in the comment section.
This comes down to how individuals tend to take what they want when there is an emotional attachment to a message, unfortunately it also tends to leave out logic and objectivity. Thus, creating a path for mixed messages and reading between the lines; in psychology, this is called pareidolia; a concept of a perceptual set, or seeing things we want to see and using that as a problem solving method because of previously set ways or beliefs. This concept while linked into explaining superstition, can also be linked to confirmation bias.
While we’re on biases, I would like to touch more on how the content in mainstream media’s coverage has been diluted by the subjective manner of how the case was written.
What was published became a doorway perceived by keyboard warriors to blatantly voice out hatred towards the parties involved, I write parties because I saw criticism shifted to the girl, the boys and the institution.
I feel that this would be the right place to repeat my disclaimer that this is written solely based on my opinions upon my observation.
How the articles were written and published were a in a form of cognitive bias; I saw this as a learning opportunity, so I asked my friends with media background to tell me what difference did they see in the articles posted compared to my 2 cents?
What I’m allowed to write down on record was a divide between the media seeing the viral topic as a currency that would elevate their readership, and the defense against rape culture. But while I’m still gathering information on rape culture outside the western world, can we press pause and see the side effects of what media content has been proven to come with?
Like for instance, cyber bullying and public shaming comes hand in hand with the rise of social media once a tweet that touches on social sensitive issues goes viral.
Rosen points out a deep truth in her commentary on how unsettling the aftermath can get once an individual is outed as an alleged perpetrator or victim in a crime that is presented to the justice system of social media with public opinion as the jury.
Stan Lee said it best in the neighborhood super hero franchise Spiderman, “With great power, comes great responsibility”; this research on how climate change was covered in media; has proven that while the media does not directly tell us what to do, it is key to the setting of agendas and focusing public interest on particular subjects, which operates to limit the range of arguments and perspectives that inform public debate.
That said, in my opinion, the mainstream media’s responsibility should be taken account for the backlash and repercussion it may cause with the story it publishes as well as the writers linked to their publications, whom has the ability to persuade public opinion with a set agenda.
While it is still in question on how platforms work to moderate their users, it should be in the publisher’s interest to follow the 6 basic roles of media on how their influencers deliver a message to their followers. I feel like those advocating as journalists, regardless the content or targeted audience, should always be objective.
That is what is taught in media writing 101, is it not?