Media's grasp on public still tight

Media's grasp on public still tight

Media has so much influence on the public, a lot of communication modules explain how the public has a say and now shapes media but over and over again there has been instances where the statement proves to be incorrect. It seems the media will always shape our ways of thinking when there are global issues which require us to have opinions. where there are sides to be taken we are only aware of one side of the story which the media wants us to be aware of. the media will always show us and tell us what they want us to hear, no matter how rational they are expected to be, at the end of the day reporters are people that have their own personal opinions. usually when a story is covered, there are many angles to approach it but the angle chosen represents the reporters personal preference and the story will end up coming out the way the reporter wants it to be heard. as the paper and magazine only have a small part allocated for a story covered, it is not everything that can be included in the column and what is left out might just be the side of the story the fixes the jinx to the one sided print out. E.g right now the e-toll is the in thing and everyone knows the public is totally against it, the media saw an opportunity to maximize on the public's feelings and decided to write articles about the speech presented by the president making him out as an irresponsible person who speaks any how. The thing is, the reporter chose to write only what she wanted the public to know and omitted bits of information which change the whole ordeal concerning what was actually said. Just like every other citizen i am against the e-toll however this gives me no right to be twisting peoples words and attacking them and changing everything they say to be rude or bashing their image just because they chose to support the e-toll. everyone has a right to agree or disagree to whatever they feel they should, people should  be allowed to voice out their opinions regardless of who they are and what titles they hold. the media is a lovely thing to spread out the necessary information needed by the public, the problem is the relevance  and motive behind the articles. it is impossible to write a story without attaching personal emotions or feelings if it is a touchy subject that one has a personal opinion about, no matter how neutral the story may be eventually it will take the curve to the writers personal opinion. how then do we keep the balance between the real story and what is actually given to us? this is a thought to ponder upon. the following link is what the media said: http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/zuma-dont-think-like-africans-africa/

And this is what Zuma meant: http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/mac-apologises-for-zuma-s-malawi-gaffe-1.1596495#.Umor1nCBk3g

Now this is my question, had it been a case where the public is benefiting and he still uttered the same words, would South Africans be so quick to label and call him names or would we have tagged along to the justifications of what he actually meant? lets take time to think about it and be real with ourselves, this war is now against our own president and no longer about the e-toll. just another side of the story that i felt we were missing.