Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: nerp
Oh, and I should add: If it werent' for reporters at newspapers, you'd know nothing about black sites, the government's domestic and illegal spying programs, judicial appointments in the dept. of justice based on political motives, our violation of treaties by torturing people.
Many people like to take the information given to them by reporters and newspapers and use it to structure their arguments. Yet when it comes time to criticize the media, they blather such nonsense as all newspapers are fear mongering or obsessed with celebrity gossip. If you don't read newspapers, you really have no right to claim you're informed on the issues. You're not making the phone calls and doing the legwork to get a grasp of the issue. You're just clicking away on the internet relying on reporters to do the work for you.
That's all fine and dandy, but the "reporting" of today oftentimes is more editorializing than actually reporting. Don't tell me what to think or how to feel, just report the damn news.
KT
I believe people assume this, but if you actually read the story, there's no slant. Reporters don't set out to slant a story. There is an editorial page for editorialization and op ed pieces. The vast majority of reporters try very hard to balance stories and report facts without any leaning in one direction or the other. People have this mistaken impression that most journalists have an agenda. THe fact is most reporters really don't care how an issue goes either way and just report what they see.
People often get pissed that something is slanted because it's not slanted the way they WANT it to be. You can quote two people equally and lay it out balanced and the guy you quoted on one side will be pissed that the other guy you quoted was even mentioned. People will say "i can't believe you called that guy and quoted him" and it's like, uhh, listen buddy, the story isn't just a mouthpiece for just you.
In fact, many national reporters are so careful to be balanced they often include details and facts that aren't relevant or important. Many reporters still say that climate change is being "debated" among scientists just because one crackpot is clamining there is no change going on. The truth is there is no debate going on about whether it's happening. The implications and timeline may be under debate, but there's no question that the overwleming majority of scientists agree that the climate is changing and sea levels are rising (arctic melt cycles anyone?) Yet, because of people screaming about how newspapers are liberal and slanted, the reporter feels compelled to say that the science behind global warming is still under debate because someone out there is crazy enough to claim that it's not happening.
The same fear of not being balanced is what gave the administration a free pass leading into the war in iraq. Fears of being too liberal and being called unpatriotic led reporters to not question the assertions made by the administration leading up to the war nearly enough. The NY times -- if you remember -- printed a massive compliation of their own failed reporting leading up to the war a couple years ago. It was quite shocking how their efforts to not fall into the trap of being a "left wing liberal newspaper" caused them to miss the truth.
It's important for the public to continue supporting news outlets that focus on quality journalism to keep the government in check. DO you folks really want the government controlling the message? Do you really want media outlets to just re-print press releases and type up official statements without asking questions? By being lazy and ignoring the media, you're creating an environment in which the powers that be can get away with whatever they want. When the shit hits the fan and your life is impacted by a town council's decision, a city council's decision, or when your child's education is impacted by the decisions of an incompetent school committee, don't blame anyone but yourself for not reading the local paper that had been covering the leadup to the vote. Too many people show up at meetings after the fact and scream "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN YOU SUCK" meanwhile they're oblivious to the fact that their local paper was trying to warn them about it for more than six months.
Go ahead, put your heads in the sand. It's a lot easier to point fingers and cry, isn't it?
Facebook
Twitter