Concern about the Accuracy of American Media

I can understand your concerns, but I can't see how things are really 'worse'. I mean, think of pre-1900's journalism. How informed was the average citizen in, say, 1850, before TV and radio, and when newspapers had to rely on word-of-mouth or a telegraph wire. We've survived eras where the government had much, much less public oversight, I think.

It would take a pretty coordinated effort to shush something now. I mean, heck, if politicians can't cheat on their wives, how are all these big conspiracies involving thousands of people covered up? I know a lot is made of the consolidation of the major news outlets, but I think everyone takes those with a grain of salt. Like your example, the Osama thing, everyone I know already knows about it, and yet I never saw it on any main media outlet. That's the reason I say it would be far more difficult to hide or engineer stuff now.

News outlets have to be careful about posting a lot of the 'rumor' stuff, like the Hussein thing. Propaganda is a powerful tool, and people will believe what they hear. If they did publish the Hussein/Kurd thing, how could the US government disprove it enough to satisfy anyone who already believes they lied? The burden of proof needs to be on the people who bring this kind of stuff to light, and I think for the most part it is. Look at what that kind of rumor mongering does to media outlets like Al Jazeera. They are a joke to most of the world, impossibly biased and always grasping for something inflammatory to spout.

The ones who are in danger are the ones who just tune to MSNBC or FoxNews and never change the channel. If you look at the kind of kooky conspiracy stuff floating around here, I can't see that anything can be shushed.

That's another reason I no longer have concern about the American media. Although it has problems, I'd believe it over any alternative news source full of radicals and conspiracies.
People also have to choose whether they want news that's accurate yet slow or unreliable yet speedy.

Actually, I think that history would show far more public awareness of issues in the past.

If you listen to FDR's fireside chats, one of the things that seems most dated about them is the depth of the discussion. A similar speech today would not be understood by the majority of the people.

Or consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Very ordinary citizens must have had quite a wide knowledge of current affairs to understand these.

The news in the past was certainly slower, but it was more in depth.

Good points Don.  These day the average person cant get more "deep" than the shallow end.
 
As far as the media goes.   For an election and campaign reform and all of that.....imagine if the the FCC actually did something useful and enacted free airtime for national and local canidates?

People in the past used to listen to very long speeches, also. Because television is a visual medium, the spoken and written word has become less important. In addition, having all the news being bought up by a few corporations has made for less competition and more entertainment.

Maybe the truth is that the American people are changing, becoming far less intelligent and just don't care about anything but the sensationalism?

But seriously though, who am I to comment. I live in the UK and the second biggest party (the Tories) had a big conference over the weekend. This was to convince the voters that they were able to wuin the next electino and govern. My entire knowledge from the news coverage was that "the Tories were going to give power to the people". Zero knowledge on how, who, when or even why. Just lots of nice video clips of the leader looking leader like, oh and lots of comments abotu the current government being bad and failing the people. Very very sad really.

The problem isn't jsut the media, the problem is also the politicans focussing on visuals and the public wanting a quick 15 second news story nto a 15 minutes knowledge session.

To bring this into focus, I was at a cpnference on Friday where the guest speaker used his slot to give a presentation on the dangers of modern presentation. He gave a wonderful presentation as if given by Lincoln at Gettysburg. Plenty of good graphs, nice photos, good solid bullet points. An excellent presentation really. Then he read the Gettysburg address. Totally put the presentation to shame and made everyone realise that maybe presentations have gone too far and the message gets lost. Same with politics nowadays. They are so busy presenting themselves that they no longer present the information or capture the hearts of the people.

Paul.

"People in the past used to listen to very long speeches"

I think that even after trains were common, a very small percentage of the population ever heard a speech from the President.

"In addition, having all the news being bought up by a few corporations has made for less competition and more entertainment. "

But like I say, for every outlet that is bought up by a big corporation, there are severals independent outlets.

I think the idea that we are less accurately informed now is a fallacy. There is more visibility, insane amounts of instantaneous communication, and everyone has the ability to "publish" what they know in some form or another. The more people involved in a 'conspiracy', the more apt it is to fail. In the first hundred years of American history, many people had local newspaper news, and that was it. I find it hard to believe that it would be easier now to mislead the public than then.

I dont agree that the more people involved in a conspiracy the more likely it is to fail.   I think just the opposite.  The more people in on it the more it wil be smoke screened from all angles.
 
There's actually scientific  fact about how the more people that witness a crime, the less likely it is to be reported.

Jeremy, where did you get that "scientific fact"? because I have heard quite the opposite from law enforcement officers that I know. Statistically, the larger the number of people who know something, the greater the chance one of them will let something slip at some point.

JeremyG: So if you have a secret, you feel that it is safer to tell 100 people than 10? Even if you trust them all? How many people knew about Clinton's little trists as opposed to how many people it would take to cover up the capture of Osama Bin Laden? You'd have to arrange the total complicity of probably hundreds of people around the world.

My point is, the longer the chain, the more chance you will have a weak link.

I think the psychology behind Jeremy's "scientific fact" doesn't weigh in favor of his theory about conspiracies. I see that fact as indicating this:

If you are the only witness to a crime, then clearly the onus of reporting it lays upon you. But if you know a lot of other people also saw the crime, you figure that "somebody" will report it, so it doesn't have to be you.

Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

Should I try to sell that line to Al Jezzera, or CNN, FNC,CBS,NBC, or NPR ????

I'm beginning to believe the line in "Men in Black", only the tabloids report the real news, ( sorry Rush ).............

Any who believes the media is honest please stand up.Its good to see very few people will go to bed tonight with tired legs.Never since the bomb has the government had such an effective tool,and almost as well controled.Lets take for instance Martha Stewart. Has it crossed anybodys mind of the timing of this circus,before April and not after?Does anybody remember tax time?Pick a name brand,everybody loves Martha,and she didn't do anything compared to ,say Ken Lay or hundreds of others .So the government ask the media to play it up until after tax time and then play it down.Because it wasn't that serious a crime She will probably walk with an appoligy.Remember Willie?Everybody new Willie and liked him,I liked him and didn't know him,how much time did he do in prison?Didn't he get new strings?Point being the government makes millions{or saves millions} depending on how you look at it by having the media exploit these people.Every CPA is told to be careful with the books.Going further ;How about the illegals overunning the country, Have they, the media, not been told to keep quite?why hasn't the media pushed the government on alternative fuels ,that the country needs so badly.The American media was supposed to be free and Informative for the people, and one time it was.......charlie poore

Well, to take one story as an example: Osama Bin Laden' supposed capture. I see two possibilities either he really was captured, OR, an erroneous report, complete with pictures, appeared in a major foreign country, implying either a conspiracy to mislead or incompetence beyond belief... It is my view that either of those possibilities is major news.

Same with the supposed capture of Saddam Hussein by the Kurds. The two most likely possibilities are that the Kurds are trying to pull a fast one, or they really did capture him and tried to deal him for political consessions from the US... Again, either way it is a major news story.

The silence has me deeply worried.

Don, the press is not a place to try 'truth', it isn't a court. Why? They aren't lawyers speaking in front of a jury. They glean facts, and pass them on. When they can't verify facts, it isn't their job to pass them on and let us decide.

If the press tomorrow reported that Bush lied and is holding Bin Laden for election week, it would be no different than the press passing on a report that he cheats on his taxes or beats his kids. It doesn't matter if they say "This is what we heard, you be the judge", it would still be irresponsible. You just assume that the 'proof' was squelched, not looked over and judged dubious.

'Rumor' is what is wrong with the press. Go read Al Jazeera and see what reporting every rumor you hear does for your credibility. My blog Blogging as the Rumor Game applies here too. When the press reports a dubious fact, and then a week later retracts it on the back page, the damage is done. If tomorrow they post that Bush bought Hussein from the Kurds, no amount of retraction will appease people later, even if the report was completely false.

Journalism isn't about 'reports', it is about facts. You get a report, you track down the facts, and if it doesn't pan out you keep your mouth shut. Anything else is irresponsible.

Baker Street, I disagree. Very little of what is reported (and even less of what is important) is fact. Obviously, many of the president's statements about WMD were not factual, but they certainly needed to be reported. Same with budget projections, or statements about trade or environmental policy.

You have the metaphor crossed up. It is a jury that should be severely restricted as to what they hear. The public is not a jury, and the press is not a judge; the public must hear all manner of fact, disputed fact, opinion, and messy statements that fall in between. There is no other way, as long as the public is sovereign, to hand over decision-making power to them at election time. It is up to the pincipals to refute statements that are false, and it is up to the public to sort through the charges and counter charges.

Seriously, would you have taken this position when Bill Clinton was president, that the dirt on him could not be reported unless it was proven fact? I cannot help but suspect that you are defending the current administration's position out of partisan politics (although I know many Democrats who have done just the reverse )

In any case, I feel that the situation is dangerous. If the public does not hear a wide spectrum of stories, we cease to have a democratic system of government... and as much as I worry about the public's competence, at times, I trust it, in the long run, a lot more than I trust either political party or the media to make the best judgments.

In these particular instances, let us assume that the administration is hiding nothing. The tactics of the groups spreading lies is a newsworthy story that the public should know about.

"The tactics of the groups spreading lies is a newsworthy story that the public should know about."

And in the process you either:

a) take sides and call them lies, which the press really shouldn't do.
or pass them on as unverified truths, and most likely spread lies to people who no amount of revision will convince later.

Yes I agree that:

The public is not a jury

That is why they shouldn't be tossed questions, only verified facts. When you pass on rumor and let people judge, then those people later get very angry that you fed them falsehood. What was the topic of this blog again?

"It is up to the pincipals to refute statements that are false, and it is up to the public to sort through the charges and counter charges."

So people are guilty until proven innocent? That isn't the way the law works, and when you are in the position of making public accusation, you are functioning under the law. Hearsay doesn't stand up in court, and it really isn't responsible journalism, either. The press are being seen in a worse light, and it is exactly because of what you are saying they should do. Passing on false information, effecting the way people feel about reality, only later to find that it was false. People feel betrayed, people stop trusting the press. People start voicing "Concerns about the Accuracy of the American Media".

I mean, please folks, if you are concerned about accuracy, shouldn't they be *more* careful? I don't understand how you can demand more accuracy and then demand them to pass on material of dubious provenance and intent.

So what we end with is.....You can't rely on one source of news. Thats why people who really want the truth will watch the news, but will also go other places like the internet. The more sources you have, the better chance you have of finding the truth. Not to say that this couldn't fail, it could, and has.

"That is why they shouldn't be tossed questions, only verified facts."

Since almost nothing is truly a verified fact, that would mean the public hears almost nothing. Your way leads to disaster (assuming you want popular control of government.)

For years I have watched the same dynamic in local education. The school board (much like the national public) received little information until after the admistrative professionals have sifted through it for their version of verified fact. The result is that the schools are not run by school boards, at all, much to the detriment of education.

I repeat: I suspect that you are only taking this position out of support for the current administration... I doubt very much that you would have such a tough standard for information casting doubt during a liberal administration.

I believe that people don't get interested in politics because they don't care. I work at a McDonald's, and every person I asked about the election said they didn't care who won, and they weren't excited about the election at all. How sad is that, when people stop caring about the future leader of the country? All I think the media has done is create a jaded population who just doesn't care anymore. Nobody cares about the president's view on finance reforms or stuff like that. That's why voting percentages are so disturbingly low.

"I repeat: I suspect that you are only taking this position out of support for the current administration... I doubt very much that you would have such a tough standard for information casting doubt during a liberal administration."

Nope. I was gonna write a long retort here, but I decided to put it into a blog of my own. I don't think you are getting my point at all, probably because you are blinded by your bias toward what you consider to by my bias. Here it is if you are interested and your mind has the slightest possibility of being changed concerning my view: A Blue Dress Covers Many Sins

Have to agree with Don here.

The public should have access to all the information.
They should have access to all sides interpretation of that information.
They should be able to make their own judgement.

The problem with modern media is not that they report too many untruths or factually weak stories, but that they fail to seperate what is the information from their intrepretation of that information. The exact same accusation can be levied at the government.

Paul.