As journalists, we’re supposed to sort through press releases, talking points and propaganda, using them only to the extent they enlighten us as to what special interests want to believe: Is it true? Is it the whole story? Who wants you to think it and why? Are they trying to deflect attention from other facts or a more important story?Of course, that's hard work — though not as hard as it used to be.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Indeed …
… OPINION | Americans don't trust the media, and for good reason | TheHill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Even though it's an opinion piece, I would have appreciated some actual evidence -- a few examples, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteI have personal experience as an editor of an article that was but a news release rewritten. And the mix of opinion a reportage is evident just about every day in articles in the NYT and Washington Post. Any reverence for today's is misplaced, as reverence so often is.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about reverence? I simply like some substantiation for an opinion.
ReplyDeleteIs rewriting a news release always such a bad thing? Can't it also be well done (including, I presume, some checking)? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. And I'm guessing -- but correct me if I'm wrong -- that you were the editor in question and requested changes, as an editor should do.
I have no problem critising media trends of any sort. The problem is, 'fake news' has become a way to decry reporting, and journalists, who present stuff someone (You Know Who) doesn't want others to learn. Sowing malignant distrust, rather than critical appraisal, is an effective political tool--always has been. As often as it's been said, it bears repeating, and repeating: there is a devasting long-term cost of undermining an independent press. I've lived in a country where such a press was suppressed (and/or self-censored). No one should think it can't happen in the US
You will probably reply that you didn't say 'fake news.' I fear that too many readers will make that association, or assume that's what you're implying by citing the NYT and WP. It's too easy to hear Trump's rallying cry of 'the failing NYT' in your words.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think the CBS headline telling us that Iceland was on the verge of eliminating Down Syndrome, when they were actually just eliminating fetuses presumed to have Down Syndrome, qualifies as fake news, however you define it. If you told me you had eliminated malaria, I would assume you meant the disease, not the victims.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrank, poor example. Here's the actual online headline:
ReplyDelete'"What kind of society do you want to live in?": Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing'
The first part of the headline (kind of society...) actually give us a clue that something else other than eliminating the cause of DS is underway. It also makes us want to read on. But of course the headline could have been more specific.
And the first paragraph clearly indicates that it's the number of births, not the cause of DS, which is being reduced:
'With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.'
[Emphasis mine]
I won't dignify any media discussions with the term 'fake news'. I don't care to be associated with the man who wields it as a political weapon.