For journalists, it's crucial not only to admit our mistakes, but to resist the temptation to discard facts when they don’t line up with our preconceived notions.
In my view journalism has lost all credibility when most of the legacy press is clearly aligned with the views, beliefs, and values of a specific party ... the Democrats. This contagion from the editorial page to the reporters side of things is potentially fatal to the profession. Analogous to separation of church and state there should be a separation of the editorial page and reporting.This was clearly in evidence in regard to the totally biased reporting during the pandemic - where preferred speculation was reported as fact, and even worse when the facts were known, falsehoods were then reported as truths. Consider for example: the idea that natural immunity was inconsequential, even when the facts proved other wise. Then of course there was the idea that the vaccines prevented transmission and infection even when the facts ultimately proved otherwise. Considering that the creation to commercialization of these vaccines was in my judgement one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 21st century, there was no need to lie. And if there was it proved counterproductive. And speaking of facts, Matt, and active vs passive voice, why are you so passive and restrained in not naming outright the perpetrator of local propaganda and falsehood ... our proud manipulator of the facts ... our version of Pravda: the Wednesday Journal? Now that I truly find ironic.
Thanks, Bruce -- and good call-out on the passive/active connection and my own decision not to name the WJ. I'll reflect on that further, for sure. (Upon further reflection: I have made edits to the essay to include the Wednesday Journal by name, as well as to display some of the excerpts to which I'd referred.)
It's still going on and there are ample examples on a daily basis. You don't have to go back to old stuff. Stealth edits only after people scream. What were there, three or four edits to the NYT (NYT!!!) headline which assigned blame without confirmation. Describing hostages as "being detained" in another publication. I see no end in sight because news sources are now pandering for clicks. It's also why up to 80% of people do not trust media. I only expect that it will get worse.
The vast majority of journalistic errors made run against people to the right of center. I'm sure you know the percentage of Democrat registrations and contributions among journalists. How could this not be a factor in skewing the news? You alluded to this element in journalistic malpractice: what is omitted. That is my main gripe .
And by the way, the correct quotation from Moynihan goes like this: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”
“The American media produce a product of very poor quality. Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy, but it's basically junk.”
In my view journalism has lost all credibility when most of the legacy press is clearly aligned with the views, beliefs, and values of a specific party ... the Democrats. This contagion from the editorial page to the reporters side of things is potentially fatal to the profession. Analogous to separation of church and state there should be a separation of the editorial page and reporting.This was clearly in evidence in regard to the totally biased reporting during the pandemic - where preferred speculation was reported as fact, and even worse when the facts were known, falsehoods were then reported as truths. Consider for example: the idea that natural immunity was inconsequential, even when the facts proved other wise. Then of course there was the idea that the vaccines prevented transmission and infection even when the facts ultimately proved otherwise. Considering that the creation to commercialization of these vaccines was in my judgement one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 21st century, there was no need to lie. And if there was it proved counterproductive. And speaking of facts, Matt, and active vs passive voice, why are you so passive and restrained in not naming outright the perpetrator of local propaganda and falsehood ... our proud manipulator of the facts ... our version of Pravda: the Wednesday Journal? Now that I truly find ironic.
Thanks, Bruce -- and good call-out on the passive/active connection and my own decision not to name the WJ. I'll reflect on that further, for sure. (Upon further reflection: I have made edits to the essay to include the Wednesday Journal by name, as well as to display some of the excerpts to which I'd referred.)
It's still going on and there are ample examples on a daily basis. You don't have to go back to old stuff. Stealth edits only after people scream. What were there, three or four edits to the NYT (NYT!!!) headline which assigned blame without confirmation. Describing hostages as "being detained" in another publication. I see no end in sight because news sources are now pandering for clicks. It's also why up to 80% of people do not trust media. I only expect that it will get worse.
And the push to be first (often at the expense of being accurate) doesn't help matters.
What Bruce Kleinman said!
The vast majority of journalistic errors made run against people to the right of center. I'm sure you know the percentage of Democrat registrations and contributions among journalists. How could this not be a factor in skewing the news? You alluded to this element in journalistic malpractice: what is omitted. That is my main gripe .
And by the way, the correct quotation from Moynihan goes like this: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”
“The American media produce a product of very poor quality. Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy, but it's basically junk.”
~Michael Crichton