The two videos offered very different approaches on the same story. From the 60 Minutes special report, one can gather a better understanding of the various perspectives on the issue. The reporter focused on interviews from the major players: indigenous people affected by the oil within the region, the judge who will determine how much of the multi-billion dollar lawsuit might be paid by Chevron, the man who assessed the damages done by the oil contamination, the key players within Chevron, and other voices from both sides of the lawsuit. Though the special report by 60 minutes offered a wider array of voices than the second video, the focus on the side of the plaintiffs, by sheer, greater frequency of coverage, left me feeling that a larger agenda was behind the story's reporting. Such a gut-feeling helped me to decide that somewhere within the report, the precedent set by Murrow's reporting was abandoned (or it was never really adopted in the first place.)
Similarly, the second video, offering Chevron's take on things, really did just that. Language such as "Anti-Chevron protests" was adopted by the reporter over using language like "people protesting Chevron gathered in the streets of such and such a place," as an example. When I hear "anti" used when talking about two specific, opposing parties, I often associate "anti" with "antagonist." I've seen enough movies to know that the good guy is typically the protagonist and the bad guy fills the other role. Instincts and random schema aside, the second video touched mainly on how Chevron was the victim, showing ways that the company should be considered innocent rather than focus on both sides of the lawsuit. This is contrary to the example of the "Murrow Standard" of traditional journalism, which requires utmost dedication to seeking the truth in all ways, rather than taking sides. Though the second video did not exemplify the values of Murrow's legacy, in my opinion, the 60 Minutes special report did not either.
No comments:
Post a Comment