Reading Journal Four

The world is a very large place, but with all this new technology I often find myself feeling as if it is smaller and smaller. Perhaps reading a news piece on what is happening thousand miles away from me, may in fact keep the distance larger. International news fascinates me. Primarily because I think that most American news is ridiculous, it is filled with so much of saying nothing that I’m convinced most news sources actually decreases my intelligence. What bothers me about it is what people decided to call news- the journalists are partly at fault here, for in my perception, being bad conduits; however, I ultimately blame the consumer. So, in efforts not to become a sheep- I shy away from the news. But also I think that it is easier for me to read international news because it is so far away. It is simply for my own self-interest; I feel badly about the human rights void in china, but much worse about it when I realize humans are in the same situation in my neighborhood.

Liu Xiaobo is the recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, yet he is imprisoned and seen as a dissident by the Chinese government. This article by the BBC is one of those that disappoint me. It is not a comprehensive story, it has very little background given, nor does it include a significant quote. So the reader is made aware of what happened, the situation in two sentences, and some small details; so potentially he or she could join a surface level conversation about the topic over dinner. I know that I am being very critical here, but this is what I dislike most about the news. I think that all of these sound bites we are constantly being fed are doing the public a disservice, and the public (myself included of course) are prolonging their effect by repeating them and taking that as the entire story. This is also why I don’t like the type of quoting done in most news pieces. Look at the quoting done here, it is short, choppy, and does not enlighten the reader or key he/she into the view of the interviewee; it merely reinforces a already common thought.

The NY times, of course, covered the same story with the same angle -they even used two of the same quotes. This article does not bother me as much, it is definitely a step up as it is about double the length and describes in more detail the state of affairs in china and this man’s involvement in historically controversial situations.

I would like to be informed of some examples of human right violations, not just repetitive statements that they occur. Also what did this Liu Xiaobo say? Why are we so content just know that he won this prize and he is an honorable character, shouldn’t at least some of the news be what he has written or done? What if we disagree with his thoughts and then decide maybe it is not so good he won? You can’t believe everything this Norwegian committee tells you! Apparently, the guardian thinks that this is what is most important as well though, and of course his release. Nothing has changed for this man- he does not even know of his appraisal to this extent and has not even officially accepted. And human rights still have not changed in China! Something is telling me that Mr. Xiaobo would ask the question: now what?

I want news to change in the direction of becoming less news worthy. I would like people to stay interested in a news article after the second paragraph, and read a quote longer than two sentences. This type of reading, I believe, educates you on a personal level and forces you to think- really think, not just intake and gloss over. My hope for the future of journalism is also to have the public choose what they read. Just because it is readily available and three different news sources cover the story as their headline, does not imply that attention to the topic ought to be paid.