While amusing, and in this case harmless, it's an interesting example of how careless a lot of news sources seem to be these days. I've heard several hoaxes reported as news recently, and there have been several other cases of things reported that could have been disproven with basic research. Here's another one (http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/chicagogator.asp).
Basically, the Chicago Tribune reported an aligator caught in the chicago river a few days ago and said it was the first saurian ever found. Basic research found that a similar incident was reported by the exact same newspaper! Granted it was over a century before, but still, it wasn't the first time.
As I said, in this case it wasn't important, but kiddies, if you want to be a new reporter, for all our sanities' sake, do your research!
I was just thinking this the other day when a couple of slightly higher profile stories suddenly were announced as either false, or blow way past the point of actual credible fact. While the internet is great for the spreading of information, we really have reached that point of saturation in that a story can be picked up and run with in a matter of minutes worldwide, and in the rush to "break" the story, people just copy and paste and never bother to check and the truth seems to get lost in the shuffle of sensationalism and headlines.
I find that it gets harder and harder to discern stuff anymore when so many outlets (both professional and amateur) are so quick to post and so slow to correct.
I agree. There are things that wind up in articles written by journalists that are hokum. And, it also annoys me when journalists don't bother to check whether what some public figure has said is even true or supported by decent evidence before taking them seriously.
Though, I am not sure journalists were ever all that great about research. It's just that now people on the Internet who are interested in a story can do research on their own to check things and we are more likely to find out when a reporter didn't do his job.
the sad thing is that some of the mistakes in reporting are intentional.
remember kids:
- If it bleeds, it leads!
- And it's ok to stretch (or fudge on) a few facts in the name of getting your story out there
The previous two bullets came from actual journalists I have encountered over the years.
It is true the Pulitzer himself never let a fact get in the way of a good story.
a couple of weeks ago, one of the npr shows (i think it was "talk of the nation") broadcast from the new smithsonian museum for journalism. this was before the end of the primaries and they were interviewing three different journalists who had been traveling on each of the campaigns. It's like a whole subculture for them to be riding on the buses and such - the candidate will walk back there and start talking and poof they have work to do. i imagine it would be hard to have an original thought in that environment - i mean even if you yourself are innovative, someone looking over your shoulder at your work might not be.....
anyways, someone asked if they ever play jokes on the other journalists and they do! someone will go to the bathroom and when they get back everyone will act so busy like something important just happened.......must be a funny world.
here's a link!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90892243
I hightly recomend also listening to the podcasts on Slate.com since they give you a good view of the news from the point of view of reporters, where they often explain things such as media bias, research, proof and conflict of interest.
Lugaru, I feel like I am getting baited here. GRRR.
The problem with media bias is that it can't simply be explained away or made excuses for and then it's all okay. The fact of the matter is that most cases of media biasness are not simple matters of "a reporter not getting all the facts" but rather a reporter "blatantly ignoring facts that do not corroborate his (or her) story".
Some of it is not even done intentionally, it's how they were taught to do their job. That's the minority of them, though. The only other unintentional reason I can think of for their behavior is that they misconstrue the difference between reporting and commentating. This problem is a bigger issue for documentary filmmakers, many of whom want their commentary (and the basis for said commentary) to be seen as fact and often represent it as undisputed fact. I could go further into this but I won't, if you are that curious then message me about it.
The bottom line is that anyone who tries to make excuses for "media biasness" is doing exactly that: making excuses.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on June 25, 2008, 07:17:01 AM
The bottom line is that anyone who tries to make excuses for "media biasness" is doing exactly that: making excuses.
That's why it's refreshing to hear reporters address the topic instead of pretend it does not exist. And yeah, news is edited and therefore it always has some sort of spin on it. Besides having a political agenda (Obama's "terrorist fist bumb" being a particularly dumb example thanks to Fox news) there is also the editorial side, for example "lets not talk about Burma because there's no pictures to go with the story" or "let's do some more coverage on Bill Gates leaving Microsoft because every other news outlet is getting good numbers on that story". Another great example was the completely hollow story about McCain possibly having an affair and maybe selling out to lobbyests backed by no research.
I think it's great to actually listen to reporters talk about what news is being ignored due to ratings and where stories are being fabricated out of nothing in to sell more. They talk a lot about how you just dont show american casualties on TV and how people in public radio are often advised to back off to not seem too anti-republican.
But I'm sure your angry at something else entirely (Michael Moore it seems?) and not the contents of these shows I listen to.