Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in this article and substantiate your arguments with your own examples.



The article questioned the reliability of the media, on their definition of "quality news". As the public relies too much on the media to produce reliable information, they usually forget to ask themself about how true is it. Hence, most of the time, they will be fooled into believing whatever news fed to them by the media, accepting the media's credibility and recognising their ability to produce quality news.

The article suggests that the government or large companies can easily manipulate the media to their own benefit, in fooling the viewers. The news the media publish is actually under the control of the market. The author claims that the factors are mainly popularity, prejudice and profit. The media will only convey quality news, which in this case is not defined as the truth but defined by the popularity of it. This would also link to the profit achieved by the high viewership rate. Some how, in one way or another, prejudice is directly proportional to popularity.The media reserve the rights to censor "controversial" news.

I think that this is a case of viewers choose what they want to see. The media works in such a way that popularity plays an influential role in the information they cover. They are often afraid to "offend" viewers and hence reduce the popularity of the source of media. This will reduce their profits and hence, not lucrative enough for them to continue. The truth may not be what the public want to know. The media works on the mind of the viewers and effectively trick them into believing whatever news that is made available to them by the media.