Free media is a forum where people can express their opinions unabridged and whereby the journalist is only a professional mediator to give them the forum the people need. Balanced media is the media which is unbiased;which exercises independent investigative journalism;which is always trying to collect information and present it from diverse sources and perspectives.
In my opinion,I still stick to the idea that a journalist must necessarily present ideas in a balanced way. Otherwise, we are gonna hear watch and read only one side of the coin. For example almost all the so-called free media in Ethiopia are obsessed with contents that are anti-government( opposition). But need they be so? Concerning whether a journalist doesn't need the forum for himself/herself,he/she can actually use the forum but only in unbiased way.Otherwise,if they present their mere opinions as facts,they have a great potential of misleading people in the wrong way.Thus,if a journalist wants to use the media as any person, he/she needs to separate opinions from facts; substantiate or support facts or statements with the necessary evidence and make the forum open for further comment by others.
In light of this,
2 comments:
I don't get the 'free press' reference. Is the reference to the'private press' or 'privately owned mass media outlets'? If so, may be we should say so. If not, confusion may take hold.
Hi gmgiorgis,normally,I don't think that whether a press media is free or not necessarily depends on the issue of ownership(except if it is a media owned by a political organization or party.For the current purpose,however, by free press I am referring to the privately owned press products.
Post a Comment
Comment