Television is the main source of news these days. Many may object and bring their arguments in favor of the World Wide Web, but here you can argue. Still, television news programs gather a more impressive audience at the screens. However, the news line on TV is presented rather meagerly: briefly, concisely, mostly just facts. While in the newspapers there is where to unfold journalistic thought. The question is how useful it is for shaping the reader's opinion about a topic or event.
A drop wears away a stone
However, analyzing the pros and cons of the media, one gets the impression that the journalist brother thinks about the usefulness of his materials last. The main trend of our time is to hook the reader. The title, the uniqueness of the topic, the quote, the names of the speakers. Anything, just to drag the blanket - the attention of the reader - to your material and your publication. Well, if an intelligent and understanding editor will straighten the bend towards the gag, throwing out half of the text. And if the publication is not lucky to have a worthy professional in the editorial board? Then nothing can interfere with the self-affirmation of the pretentious scribbler. Such a trend canfollow the pages of hundreds of publications. It is unfortunate that there is practically nothing really useful in these materials.
Repeatedly repeated one and the same thought can firmly root in the reader's mind the belief in the stated statement. This is both the pros and cons of the print media, since it is possible to invest in a person both true and false knowledge. He will live by them, be guided by them, since his conviction that this is an unshakable dogma will be unshakable. Repetition has been used since time immemorial. It's like memorizing the multiplication table. And if for a certain period a person regularly begins to re-read the “convincing” arguments of the “experts” that the earth is flat, then it will be sacred to believe that it is so.
Zombie yellow
Knowing the strength of this trend, many tabloids feel free to spread outright nonsense on their pages, not caring much about the veracity of what is stated. For every product there is a consumer, and the reader is on the tabloid press, succumbing to the influence of the media that dominates the logic. The pros and cons of such an addiction are the same - they will root any thought, even the most absurd, in the subconscious. It's good if a yellow newspaper is taken instead of a collection of jokes, being aware of the "quality" of its printed word.
But the tragedy here is different: a huge audience of readers spends their hard-earned money on the fact that it’s not worth a damn, buying into a bright flashy cover with an inviting headline and a snapshot of a part of a naked body(also a win-win technique to interest certain segments of the population). What are the pros and cons of media with a “yellow” tint when they carry outright negativity on their pages: murders, rapes, bullying, etc. They are in the windows and counters, their mountains, and really worthy newspapers - a few unclaimed copies on the sidelines, on the bedside table. A lot of cons no matter how you look at it.
Independent media?
Another regularity of our modernity is that each publication pursues someone's specific goals. Loud statements by one or another source of information that it is independent is a publicity stunt, nothing more. Those that enjoy the support of federal, regional or municipal government structures have the same tasks. For existing private investors, the situation is different. Whoever pays orders the topics of the materials, their focus. Some are praised, some are scolded. The pros and cons of the media is that the dirt and fame on the same person are almost equally divided. And would there be one continuous negative or, on the contrary, indefatigable praise? Either universal disgrace, or undeserved honor. Both are harmful.
To read or not to read newspapers
The eternal question: to be or not to be. Good advice, which in our time should be heeded, especially in relation to certain publications, was given by Professor Preobrazhensky to his colleague Dr. Bormenthal. “If you care about your digestion, my good advice is not to talk about Bolshevism and medicine at dinner. And oh God youSave it, don't read Soviet newspapers before dinner. What followed Ivan Arnoldovich's objections that there were no others, we all remember very well. Considering the pros and cons of the media in Russia and taking into account that there are much more of the latter, Bulgakov's advice through his hero should still be adopted. Of course, only in relation to those newspapers that spit out a continuous negative on readers, moreover, a criminal one.
Still, publications that deserve respect and attention do exist in Russia. They have a glorious history that they have been creating for decades, authors recognized by many authoritative speakers. The balance between the pluses and minuses of the media celebrating their anniversaries above the "golden" ones tends towards the former. Yes, they also have a lot of ads, like everywhere else. The laws of the market bear their mark on their pages. But even the quality of promotional materials, not to mention the text content of famous publications, is still on top. Their reading is a must. And you can before lunch.
