Posted by: edgarvasiliu | August 6, 2009

Is the Miscast Article Miscast? (probably not correct English but it supposed to be clever, I hope)

Is the new media role and traditional role in the primaries really contradictory? Why is it wrong to inspect the candidates’ platform or judge their fitness for the nation’s highest office or determine their electability? It is arguably part of the watchdog role. Its is also arguably part of social responsibility. What is wrong with attempting to inform the voter. Losing its objectivity, you say? We’ll with tricky or controversial topics you could have a balanced editorial or different editorial views or somethin. Also, the media employees analysts to give valuable insights on such topics. I am not convinced that a commitment to inform the public is miscast or contradictory to the media’s traditional role of conveying the campaign message and exposing wrongdoing. What is wrong with the media playing a constructive role? I think its a natural outgrowth and compatible with the traditional role. I don’t exactly understand how the traditional role existed but from the article’s explanation I am not persuaded that they are mutually exclusive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: