Big headline! “Tropical Depression Races Toward BP’s Leaky Well.” How does the reporter that wrote that article know this? Are they a meteorologist? Do they have some weather prediction skills the rest of us don’t know about? No and no. Actually, after I read that one and researched a couple other sources meteorologists don’t quite know yet if it’s headed in that direction. The author wasn’t predicting the weather, they were attracting eyeballs to their article. Why? I think a couple of reasons, not the least of which is because they value their job. The more people that read or click on that article the more money their news reporting agency makes, therefore meaning more job security. So where’s the harm in that?
Well, in America, these news reporting agencies (and you know which ones to which I am referring) are the most visible, reprinted and republished. The vast majority of Americans get their news from these kinds of sources, not just on TV but online as well. So the harm is rather significant since the information is misrepresented, you’ve now misinformed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of readers. When the true objective of News Media is actually to inform…not entertain.
Another example that’s made headlines lately is the Apple “Antennagate” issue with the new iPhone 4. After about 3 weeks Apple held a press conference (which you can view on Apple’s web site here) explaining to detail the cause of the signal problem with the iPhone. Then they proceeded to demonstrate the exact same issue with other popular phones from the RIM Blackberry to Samsung to an Android phone. Steve Jobs, who led the conference, after showing how common a problem this is, continued to make a strong point of how the media has blown this issue out of proportion. Now, this accusation is not flattering to the media, even though it is newsworthy, now do you think it was reported? Do you think the media would report news about themselves…no matter how newsworthy the story actually is? No. The media reported ONLY the parts of the conference that backed up their own original claims. Article after article, news organization after news organization reported about 1/10th of the conference’s information to protect its own image. Virtually nothing about the tests with the other popular phones, virtually nothing about how they themselves may have blown this issue up. The result of this hypocrisy? The news hungry public, as usual, is only partially informed. Ok, so we have SOME information…where’s the harm in that?
Having only some of the facts associated with a news making story can be dangerous. There’s a bright shining example of that making headlines in the last day or two. The African American, former USDA employee, Shirley Sherrod. She was fired from her job recently due to a ‘selectively edited’ video of a speech she gave not long ago appeared as if she was intentionally not assisting a white farmer. The Obama administration reacted to this report and fired the woman. However, after further investigation, watching the original video, uncut, they see they took these remarks out of context and now our President is begging for her to come back to her job with a huge apology.
So what can we do about this? How can we become more informed? Unfortunately, there’s no clear answer. Just try to get your news from multiple sources. Try to get your news from organizations other than the “big ones.” There are many smaller news reporting agencies all over our country that are non-profit and therefore have no monetary gain from reporting sensationalism and over-hyped headlines.
Now don’t get me wrong, the storm that’s not even in the Gulf of Mexico yet (as of the writing of this article) may hit “BP’s leaky well” dead on. But at this point, that’s uncertain. So, with all of the sensationalism, fear tactics and profit-mindedness the news media maintains the only problem I see with the media seems to be the media.
Well said