Mass Media
The Media: Revealed or Criticized?
Although Gibbon presents an adequate amount of information on how the media is responsible for the loss of public heroes, he fails to inform the reader of the positive acknowledgment that some media give to celebrities or potential heroes. He presents a lot of comments about well-known people, but it solely supports his own opinion. My first question was, "Is this acceptable evidence?” With him only presenting the negative feedback from the press and media, makes this more of an opinion article rather than factual. He isn't particularly saying that the media is bad, but that their central topics are insignificant to an educated society. I don't believe he supported his thesis very well, because this article did not have enough evidence to prove the fact that Media is the cause of loss of public heroes. Overall, he does support his opinion with evidence from reporters admitting to their actions such as "The reporter used to gain status by dinning with his subjects; now he gains status by dinning on them" (Gibbon 236) quoted by New York writer Adam Gopnik. He claims he doesn't mean to speak poorly of the media, but this is a bit hypocritical of him because he is potentially bashing the media in his piece "End of Admiration".
Gibbon presents what he has interpreted from the Medias judgment on people such as Thomas Jefferson, Mother Teresa, George Bush, Dan Quayle and Gerald Ford. Although, he did not present any information on who and how the media had given them a poor reputation. He throws in things like the name of the biography for Mother Teresa but none for the other four. It would have been more effective if he gave us some background of how the media had reported anything foul. He also threw in how former presidents were made a fool of such as Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. It's more or less petty things such as Lincoln being "effeminate”, Bush vomiting, or even something as foolish as Lincoln being
Although Gibbon presents an adequate amount of information on how the media is responsible for the loss of public heroes, he fails to inform the reader of the positive acknowledgment that some media give to celebrities or potential heroes. He presents a lot of comments about well-known people, but it solely supports his own opinion. My first question was, "Is this acceptable evidence?” With him only presenting the negative feedback from the press and media, makes this more of an opinion article rather than factual. He isn't particularly saying that the media is bad, but that their central topics are insignificant to an educated society. I don't believe he supported his thesis very well, because this article did not have enough evidence to prove the fact that Media is the cause of loss of public heroes. Overall, he does support his opinion with evidence from reporters admitting to their actions such as "The reporter used to gain status by dinning with his subjects; now he gains status by dinning on them" (Gibbon 236) quoted by New York writer Adam Gopnik. He claims he doesn't mean to speak poorly of the media, but this is a bit hypocritical of him because he is potentially bashing the media in his piece "End of Admiration".
Gibbon presents what he has interpreted from the Medias judgment on people such as Thomas Jefferson, Mother Teresa, George Bush, Dan Quayle and Gerald Ford. Although, he did not present any information on who and how the media had given them a poor reputation. He throws in things like the name of the biography for Mother Teresa but none for the other four. It would have been more effective if he gave us some background of how the media had reported anything foul. He also threw in how former presidents were made a fool of such as Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. It's more or less petty things such as Lincoln being "effeminate”, Bush vomiting, or even something as foolish as Lincoln being