Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberia
Not only do I understand your POV, but share it.  |
As Paul Knows, my distrust of the press goes back a long way. Way before I was born. But you don't have to go back that far to find the same kinds of examples of why.
In the book I am currently listening to I just came across another such example. During the run up to Baghdad, which the press was saying would take months (which is not my point here but why doesn't anyone ever go back and check to see how often the press is wrong), the NY Times reported that the Marines were running out of supplies. When the embedded reporter with the Marines heard this he grabbed two Marines close by and went live without telling them in advance what they would be asked. He then asked how their food and water situation was, their Ammo situation, and supply situation in General. The Marines replied that the only thing they needed was more enemies (many were surrendering saying they were happy to see Saddam taken out, which also wasn't being widely reported). The Times then reported that the Marines were being scripted. That does not sound very much like an effort to get to the truth, but instead an effort to defend a position.
In WWII, the press would not have been allowed to report on a supply shortage even if it were true. Since Korea the press can report on anything it wants, even if it is false.
It is a very interesting exercise to go through Lexus Nexus checking news headlines after the fact against subsequent events to see how often the press got it wrong. Moreover, it is interesting to check and see how few reporters actually go back and report these failures.
The Press often demands predictions from the government. When a government official gets his crystal ball predictions wrong he is hammared in the press as if he should be infallable and held to his predictions as a form of accountability. When the press gets it wrong no one says a word, much less holds it against the reputation of the reporter or news agency.