Balanced reporting of News

More than a week ago, the balloon boy gripped the USA as people sat glued to their TV screens, as they watched a home-made weather balloon float over Colorado, causing officials to disrupt flight plans and even temporarily shut down Denver airport. The family later created an even bigger stir when the young Falcon replied 'you said we did this for a show' when asked by his father why he had been hiding. The family claimed that the child was just confused after all those interviews, and brushed of allegations of a hoax. However, the allegations refused to die down, with some wondering why the family had been prepared enough to have a video camera on hand to film their reactions when the balloon floated away, but didn't even know for sure if the child was in the balloon.

Today, the boy's mother has admitted that it was all a publicity stunt thought up by her husband to get them their own reality show(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzSzo-GaUvsvKnE2HnSHpUepx3KQ). There is the possibility that both parents may be charged for a string of offences including making a false report and misleading a public servant. However, it is all bad for the Heene Family? Although no one can be sure that the charges will be filled, it's quite possible that television stations will soon be clamoring to get this wacky family onto their shows. The phrase 'balloon boy' has become synonymous with the word 'hoax' and is even used in some headlines. 'Trial Balloon? Or another Balloon Boy?' is not yet another story on the issue, but is about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This situation illustrates how the media can sensationalize a minor issue to the point of it entering everyday conversation, and become more talked about than more pressing issues than healthcare reform or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Even though we know it, most of us will end up sucked into the trap set by those like the Heenes who use it to their advantage. When the news about the flyaway balloon first broke, news channels dumped a lived broadcast of President Obama in favor of a silver balloon floating over Colorado. Fox correspondents claim that President Obama is a white-hating facist, and labels Michelle his 'baby mama' (slang term referring to the unwed mother of your child).

The mass media should try to maintain a balanced view of every single piece of news, rather than attempting to boost ratings with gimmicks and outrageous opinion pieces. Journalists are entitled to their opinion, but they should clearly label it as such, for there are many who will swallow it as God-given truth just because it was broadcast by a supposedly reputable news channel.

The influence of the mass media

With the advent of the internet, many are worrying about the waning influence of traditional mass media like newspapers and television. However, according to the Washington Post, there are advertisements that quote newspapers to boost their credibility, 'never mind that the quotes are often taken from opinion pieces that were not intended to be objective in the first place.' See what I just did there, referring to a Washington Post article? Fact is, even though the internet is increasingly becoming the go-to source for news and information, consumers view sites that are the online arm of traditional media (such as newspapers and/or television news stations), as more influential than sites that have no association with traditional mass media.

The mass media has evolved greatly over the years, with industry experts coming up with various theories to explain the phenomena of the media. The 'magic bullet' theory developed in the 1920s believed that audiences are passive creatures that are completely influenced by the mass media. In this case, we can see that this theory is not totally true. If it was, this would mean that consumers will absorb everything the mass media feeds them, and there wouldn't be any issue of declining newspaper sales - newspapers could just post an article on their website about how reading physical newspapers are beneficial, and online readers would snap real newspapers up immediately.

At the other extreme, the Limited effects theory of the 1960s states that audiences actively resist media messages, and choose what messages to assimilate based on their needs. Although it is correct in stating that consumers don't unthinkingly accept whatever they see or read, it is unlikely that consumers can totally block out messages they aren't interested in, or immediately forget what they had just read. Even if we don't go out and buy every brand of orange juice or instant noodles we see advertised, we are aware of what is being advertised, and what brands are available out there. Consumers don't think about what information to reject or accept; they unconsciously rate how influential a message is for them - according to the article below, journalists are continuously reminded 'to remember that those words can have an effect in a campaign equal to those constructed more carefully for the print newspaper.'

Groupthink

Teamwork. Its touted as the magical formula to for corporate success. However, as is illustrated in the article above, teamwork doesn't work flawlessly all of the time. In the above-mentioned situation, the team tasked with

improving the process of getting mail to the intended recipient ended up complicating it. Worse still, no one dared to speak up against what they were doing, believing that to do so would be 'heresy'. Stupid as it may seem, this phenomenon is not as rare as we believe. Its in fact known as Groupthink, which is the result of members reaching consensus because they are trying to minimize conflict, and their strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

According to Professor Amy Edmonson, teams fail because individuals don't realise that they have interesting and relevant information to share. This means that individual team members don't think that their opinion matter, or that the rest of the team don't want to hear it. Although there may be overly dominant members in the team, most of the team just wants to do the allocated task to the best of their ability, and if that means that someone truly believes 'it's a stupid idea' and has a better suggestion, they will most likely be willing to go along as long as it doesn't stretch the budget or time required.

Although we often view conflict negatively, functional conflict is necessary, and is in fact vital to combating groupthink. Most people, like Carmen Johnson, will toe the line, and even change their point of view to obtain the approval of the leader. However, this is not useful, as this means that the team isn't really a team at all, but a dictatorship full of puppets run by one or two puppet masters.

The next time someone in a group you're in voices an opposing view, don't be so quick to gang up on him or her, or think him/her a nuisance. Think about what they're saying first, and then give your answer, accompanied by a clear, logical explanation about why you feel that way.

Article Source:

Cubicle Culture: When teamwork doesn't work

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109641717999730825.html

We normally use common sense, or 'old wisdom' to try to understand interpersonal relationships, especially romantic relationships. However, many times we get things wrongs, resulting in misunderstandings within the relationship.

'Love Doctor' Terri Orbuch recently discussed some of these misconceptions in her column, which may be seen at http://www.freep.com/article/20091004/COL39/910040331/1025/Features05/Relationship-IQ-test-separates-myth-from-reality

Let's just take a look at two of the most common misconceptions we often have, as touched on by Dr. Orbuch.

At the beginning of a relationship, we see our partner for who he or she really is.

When a relationship is just beginning, we will usually try to present our best side to the other party, attempting to hide our flaws. Only with time will we reveal more of our true selves; who we really are. According to the social exchange theory, most people form relationships with those we perceive will result in greater rewards than cost. Just take a look at the Johari window below. At the start of the relationship, the public self of each individual is roughly equivalent to their private self, hidden self, and unknown self.

As the relationship progresses, both individuals will find out more about each other, as well as themselves. This will result in the public self taking up the most area in the relationship. However, the Johari window doesn't apply to all relationships the individual has, but is different for every interpersonal relationship, specific to those two individuals in question.

The best relationships are ones that have no conflict.

Conflict within a relationship takes place due to differences in perception. Although conflict is most commonly associated with being a potential destroyer of relationships, conflict can be functional: helping to build the relationship. Conflict can help us to better understand each other, and our personal points of view. If there is a total absence of conflict, it is possible that there is insufficient communication taking place within the relationship, as the two parties don't even know what they don't agree on.