This morning on +Steve Kornacki’s program Up on MSNBC, Steve and the four guests discussed
reporters and reporting. +Eleanor Clift, one of the guests made a remark that I
though was telling. She said something along the line of, ‘what reports report
has to be verifiable’. In a real sort of
way, that would make reporters like scientist. It implies a standard for journalism
that does not exist today. There seems journalistic standards have been
compromised; innuendos and nuances seem to be printed by news organizations more
often them facts. In some cases, newspapers, and TV stations even permit broadcasting
down right lies; in some case, under a by-line—no shame.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com
Comments Invited and not moderated
In the scientific world, scientist publish the results of their
work with the intent that the data can and will be verified by other
scientists. They even publish the techniques the used to obtain the information.
If the information is not verifiable, the scientist reputation can be ruined
even if his or her intentions were honorable. In the worst-case scenario, if the scientist
based his report on falsified data, the scientist will never be able to publish
anything in the future. The public should hold reporter to the same standard. They
should be able to go to the same sources or to other sources and find out the
facts. If the media organization cannot
be verified a news story the reporter should not only loose his or her job but
also his or her career.
Of course, “reporters” report many actual events; however, they
so often embellished the stories with personal opinion, it is sometimes difficult
to figure out where the truth is. Journalism standards have deteriorated to a
very low level; a flourish of inflated, colorful, and vivid descriptions of actual
minor events seem to be the only verifiable stories one can read or hear. I can
remember old-time reporters talking about lying down and have someone cover
them with a sheet so a news photographer can take an attention-getting picture
of a dead body. False yes, but true in a sense it was showing a “body” where
there actually had been a body. I find that different from reports about “welfare
queens” as happened on a news special about cheating or stories about voter
fraud in North Carolina. The recent stories in Lewiston, Maine about a tough
sounding “crack down” on rampant welfare cheaters in this town of 37,000 people
is a classic example. The police
arrested six of them—.04% hardily justifies the word ‘rampant’; all you have to
know to understand the thrust of the reports is to know there are 5,000 Somalis
living in that town, something you would never learn from reading the story.
I have no idea of how many news stories a “truth in
reporting organization” can verify and how many they cannot but my guess is
that most will not be verifiable, which
is really a sad commentary the success of freedom of the press in America. As some wise old head once said, freedom is
like your money; you are free to spend it but once you have spent it, it is
gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment