Forum Moderators: open
Question is, is this a new phenomenon, or are we just now getting sophisticated enough that people are getting caught ;)?
these days the news is produced under such intense pressure that once the agenda for the day has been set then it will override the facts...there isn't time to change it...so as long as the reporter is writing something that fits the editor's assumptions and prejudices, and so long as it fits the current news agenda, then it will be printed or aired without anyone worrying about accuracy
it's been happening for most of the last twenty years...it's just becoming the norm rather than something that only happens now and agaon
so as long as the reporter is writing something that fits the editor's assumptions and prejudices, and so long as it fits the current news agenda, then it will be printed or aired without anyone worrying about accuracy
Amazing - you just described the daily process at the Fox News Network in the States!
that once the agenda for the day has been set then it will override the facts...there isn't time to change it
But these aren't just little oppses. These were HUGE, blatantly made up stories and in most cases it was obvious that he was making things up for the big splash. Some had even gotten him nominated for Pulitzers. All false in some way, shape or part.
And this was newspaper. They have deadlines, but not like TV. His "award" winning stories were frequently not really tied to any pressing, stop-the-presses current event. Just vauge current events that were in the news at the time. After the first nine or ten questions about validaty came up, someone should have said, "Kelly, we love you're stories but we just want to wait a day to release them to make sure it's all kosher. We'll put in tomorrow's paper."
Beyond that, what's happened to retractions and corrections? Reporting wrong by mistake is one thing, reporting wrong on purpose or without the intention of correcting an error is quite another.
This is nothing new. Its not even surprising. Overall, I'd say the news media is more responsible today than it has been in the past, given that there is such competition out there, and so many sources of information, that its easier now than ever to blow away a story if it has false information.
Anyone who thinks this is surprising or new should go look at the history of the Hearst Media empire which controlled nearly half the US print newspapers in the 20s and 30s. Hearst himself would tell his reporters what to report and how to report it, particularly so he could manipulate elections, slander business rivals, and play out vendettas against just about anyone who ticked him off (most notably, Orson Welles, who's career was nearly destroyed by the Hearst media coverage of Citizen Kane, which was a thinly veiled critique of Hearst. It took nearly five years for Welles career to get back on track.)
I liked your post. I feel exactly the same.
Sometimes the term "newsfeeds" can mean many different things, considering what is really at the end of the fork.
news.google.com is great for seeing how different media outlets cover the very same story.
