IS the media capable of being objective?
YES, the media IS “CAPABLE” of being objective. But the world is on stage right now so,
they we are only going to be as objective as being able to get the story out and told COMBINED WITH being as provocative as much as the publicity for the story will garner-just like the antics of you and anybody else on SOCIAL “media.” It’s a juggling act.
Unlike before social media (when television and radio controlled the media) the playing field is now leveled BECAUSE OF the Internet COMBINED WITH social media.
It’s just that MEDIA OUTLET SOURCES (blogs/online news sources-even over radio and television) hold the bases, run the ball and cover the bases that regular people (via social media etc) are allowed to play the same game in–BUT only court side, the stands, out in the field and the dugout. The bases, field goals, dunks and home runs always have been and ALWAYS WILL belong to us. And I don’t care what you’re screaming, selling or talking about. News media outlets are the vessels. It is the news media outlets blogs (online) radio or television (offline) that has to take whatEVER you are screaming, selling or talking about, and present it to the world–to represent you, spite you, misrepresent you or diss representing you at all.
You can scream, repost and rep who, and what you want on social media until you’re blue in the face. It would seem like its collective billions versus collective thousands in news media (online blogs, radio and television) would be THEE new “news media.” Social media is gon’ social media. News media will still be the news media and force it always was and always will be. Especially: online (even over social media). I didn’t make that up or possible, the constitution did-on the backs of a people and the laws of the land, society and country.
Jack merely made Twitter. Mark merely made Facebook. And Tom merely made MySpace——–for the people. Now play with that passage for a second….
Whether that representation of selection process can be “objective” requires a bit of an explanation.
So let’s start, shall we?
The media is capable of being just as subjective as any human being is capable of being objective. But, like on an old 4 p.m. Oprah Winfrey Show, Gary Zukav explained it best (but in his own words): We are most understanding/empathetic to that which is closest to our own authentic experience [sic]. My observation (and experience) has learned that everything is personal, and now that entire the world is on stage, more than EVER. Before the world got onstage viewers could only complain that the “media is biased” because consumers and viewers had no control over how and where they got their news. Channels are sources were limited-even with cable television. The news handed to you was specific to your region in which your television was plugged in.
Now, with the Internet being extended to civilians in ways that at one time, was only available to the military and government; audiences are now exposed to what “the media” and the people overseeing the media (the FCC) tried to control (and contain).
That impossible to do know, with the addition of SOCIAL media, combined with the Internet; the jig is up.
In order to appear unbiased and looked upon as a reliable source, many news and television media sources at one time tried to disguise their biases and preferences for certain public persons, politics, and situations. Now, the jig is up on that and the ghost is out. The world is on stage (media sources, AND the audiences-via social media), so no one has to hide, camouflage or white washed what they say and report. The more provocative the better. It’s all about publicity now (for news media sources AND its audiences).
So again. I repeat: YES, the media IS “CAPABLE” of being objective. But the world is on stage right now so, we are only going to be as objective as being able to get the story out and told COMBINED WITH being as provocative as much as the publicity for the story will garner-just like the antics of you and anybody else on SOCIAL “media.” It’s a juggling act.
It’s no different that how I run ToriSpilling: posting articles withOUT disclosing sites I know are pro or con [any particular situation or person].
Tori Spilling’s function is to provide readers news and current events short cuts to “Google’s” handpicked algorithms of which stories get listed on the first few pages. Via a pipeline of several article sources I have, I do this by basically listing and categorizing articles and stories written by various sources (both pro and con) without telling my readers which sources hate Donald Trump and which ones love him.
I (personally) DO sometimes post “opinion” about certain stories, regardless because although I work to be reader’s short cut to Google, I’m still an “opinion” [of articles] site where I blog extensively and connect ToriSpilling.com to our sister site: OtherSideoftheFame.com
So the answer to “CAN the media be objective?” Yes. But look at it like I just explained in the previous 5 lines/paragraphs.
And too, as an example of (of subjectivity and objectivity) something that (for free) I was JUST about to promote RIGHT NOW here at ToriSpilling.com.
This too, where where media sources can be subjective or objective.
Here’s a secret:
I (personally) just pressed ‘pause,’ then ‘delete’ on something. This “something” is about a particular (deceased) notable person that I absolutely LOVE and want the world to see-regarding their legacy. But when I saw that it was being presented by a particular blog site that is apart of these black blogs online that run around here clicking up and being cruel to me-and never showed me love and tried to embrace me (despite the fact that before I started blogging I tried to include everybody); I decided to say fck the story and unfortunately, the person that I love. They lost by association to whom the presentation belonged. Sorry. No deal. It’s a “nay” for me…
I won’t support it because it in turn-supports this site and the people behind it. Unfortunately, the people behind it, their silly little trouble-making posses and (certain individuals) of their audiences, replicate like strands of dirty DNA and (out of jealousy) have tried to give me a big headache in hopes to persist into oblivion but I’m a seed. I blossomed. Via OtherSideoftheFame and Tori Spilling, I came in the blogging game and changed it in a big way-like none of them have, because just like they follow the same thought processes, they all follow different doings of the same blog route, model, and way. I chose to blog and distribute the same information in an unconventional and unique way.
Unfortunately, when I first came [into the blog the game] with open arms and full inclusion efforts, they all tried to shun me and be hurtful to me. I didn’t deserve to be treated like that.
It’s like the quote goes: If you find that you are in the majority, pull back and reflect. I feel that conversation is the cure for confusion. And if you find that you are taking, or creating actions at, or towards another person based on supposition or assumption (or following a crowd); you are REQUIRED to initiate dialogue to get clear. Why? Because OBVIOUSLY they are important to you-very important to you. WHO (in their RIGHT mind) incessantly indulges in cryptic behavior on a daily basis off supposition, insecurities and assumptions? Only somebody mentally ill and bored would do something like that? I explained all that to explain that those are these types and cliques that I am speaking of-let’s be clear.
Business or personal, I have NO interest in them in what the claim to be, do or say because of their BEHAVIOR singularly and collectively.
They have demonstrated that they have the business acumen the size of a literal Instagram square-nothing greater. They know NOTHING about connecting and true networking outside of bits and pieces enough to “put on” for the gullible, desperate followers that follow them. On a GRAND SCALE outside of “putting on” what they wish to present to the world (that fits into an Instagram square to promote and serve themselves are a clique at the level or beneath them), they know nothing about connecting and doing solid, business to grow their brands and EVOLVE on scales larger than “for show” online.
These cliques (that I speak of) work, fake-connect, and make moves for ‘likes’ not legacy.
When I recognize that I would have been dealing with a people like that, I want nothing to do with them or anyone surrounding them. And I make no apologies about it. Because what if I was “green” and merely dreaming. And didn’t have the skills, connects or talent to survive those people. They would have broken me down. But my force of skill and talent (singularly) is greater than theirs collectively-so they can’t break me. But what about other people out there who aren’t as skilled out there being pummeled by people like that-I think of them. And I dislike people like those I speak of because of it. I could have been that girl.
Coming in as a novice (at BLOGGING) I WAS that girl. When I first started blogging (in 2014) and tried to include them in this “blogging mecca” that I dreamed of (where I simply wanted varying opinions about entertainment and world news), they didn’t feel like they needed me or that I would be significant in the game (because they were blogging years before me). You can neglect to participate but don’t resort to agitate because you see me as a rival. That’s where you drew first blood. Like David Letterman used to say: “Whoaaa Nelly”…they had NO idea of the force and fierceness behind the ink that my pen bled. None. And unfortunately, they didn’t take the time to investigate the FACT that I’m not just wanted of these wannabes who decided to “be somebody” when social media was invented and I found that I could get attention for it. My pre-social media bio and stories were all on my blog since I stepped on social media.
"Oprah Winfrey" knowing who i am, what i (or even you) do (& claim to be) abt in 2017 means NOTHING to me.
— IG: osfmag_ (@AngFrankPodcast) February 10, 2017
…But "Oprah Winfrey" knowing who i am, am about and claim to be before social media means EVERYTHING to me.
Take that word.🚀❤🔐
— OSFMag.com (@SaidSherice) February 10, 2017
Oprah Winfrey knew my name as a young, inspiring writer back in the late 90s (and I have correspondence with her company letterhead to prove it). Over that (and in addition to having majored in psychology, philosophy, journalism AND street smarts), I’ve had Internet presence (and a website) since early 2000s. So when social media was invented, I came prepared, and baring gifts, boo.
Thank God that my:
- power (and broad/global/universal vs. niche’d) influence
- opinion (via Twitter, my blog at OtherSideoftheFame) and via ToriSpilling.com etc.
…is solid, valued, and sought after-and circulates on significant levels that aren’t solely dependent on the momentary descending, subjective, cliquey lines of mere social media (where everybody wants and is after the same thing). Globally, those people come here and OtherSideoftheFame.com to engage in and know what I have to say about any particular person, event or thing. So…I won-anyway. And keep winning everyday. Because I do what I do, everyday. And even on days that I don’t, my faithfuls are coming back for it whatever day.
Now that I’m known and seen by who they want to be seen by + their audiences, I’m enemy #1 in these insecure, isolated cliques of troublemakers. Silliness. So instead of embracing me, they CHOSE to be cryptic, mean and cruel–CONSTANTLY. Because of that, I will NEVER support them, any body in their chain of cliques, (or particular individuals in their audience) that supports/have supported them. Why ? Because, not of them stepped away from the silliness and said “I have my own mind. I’m not going to treat her like that because she had a dream-just like anybody else.” I’m over it-professionally and personally. Right now, as I write this, I’m only angry that I wanted to promote (for free) what this particular blog site is doing for this particular person that I love and respect. But I refuse to promote it. Sounds petty but listen. I work with people all the time that I don’t like. This is different.
I’m not foolishly petty. Ultimately… business comes first. And I don’t ‘not like’ somebody because of my “feelings” about something they did or said that I disagreed with. That’s mental. And irrational. And foolish. And immature. And not so savvy thinking. If I ‘don’t like you,’ you have purposely and intentionally worked and harming, blocking or hurting me-from your own feelings rather than what I’ve never done to you. And therefore,
you’ve made an enemy of meyou haven’t even made an enemy of me, I don’t even see you. So if ‘I don’t like you,’ (personally-because of what you intentionally and personally did to me) –fck you. Fck The boat you came in. Fck The gifts you come baring orr the business beneficial to meyou. I (like my decision not to promote this site’s project that I’d LOVE to promote FOR FREE-as was my initial, impulsive gesture this morning) will do without it. And it could have gotten out there (and seen) in a big way had I merely posted it. But sorry, it was the site behind it that made it a ‘nay’ for me.
I’ve listed here (at Tori Spilling) and have given complete great, grand, write ups about people I don’t like over at OtherSideoftheFame.com–that’s different. When it comes to business: MY brand and business, I can be OBJECTIVE and do what needs to be done (because my goal is to get the story out to my audience and the write up supports my brand and me). But in an isolated case like this, I refuse to. And I’ll admit, it IS subjective over objective decision. And I’m not happy about because I BELIEVE in, and feel their project is necessary. But their behavior is unforgivable.
In a hurry? Then scroll to 3:38 of this video. I will elaborate on our sister site on our next story segue compilation (like such)!