In class on Thursday we discussed Bordieu and his central argument on how television rules our society.  His view of televsion is that it exists solely in a realm of competition of ratings and the market.  Also, we discussed how journalists are losing their jobs due to the Internet, and how the print media cannot survive when competing against television, Internet, or even the radio.  I learned that journalists censor the material they cover without even knowing they're doing so (although some may be well aware).

My uncle Kevin Sack is a journalists for the NY Times and has told me about the hardships of being a journalist.  I interviewed him for a final paper I was writing on the topic of media.  He confessed to me that having a job as a journalist is not ideal and really has lost a lot of respect (due to the more popular forms of media).  I remember him saying that journalists write to sensationalize everything in order to draw an audience in.  In doing so this can create bias news coverage...just like any other forms of news/media.  I specifically asked him if there is bias writing out there and he explained to me that it is impossible to something and there not be bias information involved.  He said that editors of their writing do help with this problem and if s/he sense any bias s/he will ask that writer to re-write their piece.  This has led me to believe everything I read and consume is biased--no matter what.  These days it's impossible to not be biased.  Even when news anchors, news channels, reporters, radio stations, and journalists choose the story they want to cover, this is biased as well because THEY (or their boss) chose it for a specific reason.  We could go even further and suggest that people promote bias information as well.  Suppose someone forgot to watch the morning news and decided to ask a co-worker the highlights, that would be a biased form of news because that co-worker is going to share what they found most compelling and thought provoking.

Typically now, news channels have become all about ratings and popularity and less about sharing stories in the world which are important for our knowledge.  How often do our news channels cover something on genocide, the crisis in Darfur, or the protests in England? Never.  These topics are ignored, and for what reason?  Some may say because the U.S. cannot relate to these people outside our country, others may argue it doesn't involve "us", and others may say it's just not important.  The point I'm trying to make is that our news covers only stories they think we will enjoy and based on what they think people will want to watch, thus giving them higher ratings.  

This explains why all news channels cover the exact same material...they are all different--yet, in a very similar way.  No one wants to deviate from what was already said by another news channel for the fear of it being boring and not popular to the public (thus, lowering their ratings).