In class last week we discussed how textbook authors and editors choose what is put into their textbooks. We then were proposed with the question, “Why would these writers leave out mistakes made by the government?” Is it because they don’t want to portray the government in a negative light? Or is it that they want to stay as neutral as possible in order to avoid controversy in hopes to sell more books?
For the most part, I believe that both of these ideas are true. Textbook writers and the media in general do not like to point out flaws that the government has made. They want to stay loyal to the government, and portray patriotism, instead of ripping apart America and blaming it. Therefore, from what I came across when skimming US history textbooks, much of the history is written in a neutral manner, if not optimistic.
Authors of these textbooks would want to write neutrally so that they have a wider audience. They do not want to limit who buys the books by taking a strong stance. Because in order to sell more books and make the most money, they must refrain from a lot of controversy.
Still today, writers and media avoid topics with high controversy, and tend create a more neutral perspective. Also, the media seems to focus more on topics of or pertaining America, instead of international issues. Take, for example, the recent floods in Pakistan. When I was researching online for an example of when the “media doesn’t blame the US”, the first topic that came up with this natural disaster in Pakistan. The US has not only barely helped out the Pakistanis, but also there has been little coverage on such a big and devastating topic. Are many news writers purposely ignoring this topic because they do not want to seem like bad global citizens and represent America in a negative light?
No comments:
Post a Comment