Posts
In my opinion, change within the media needs to start with credibility. My journalism teacher from long ago was from the old-school way of thinking. I imagine he's rolling over in his grave at what our modern day media has become. Anyway, when I think about friendly persuasion, I think about credibility. After all, how can any media source accomplish persuasion if their credibility is questioned by readers/viewers.
For what it's worth, here are some changes I'd like to see implemented among the various newsformats (television, print and electronic):
1. Correct use of terminology.
One of my pet peeves in today's media is the word "Soldier" when used as a universal term referencing military members. The U.S. Military is composedof Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. When I see or hear the incorrectusage of "Soldier" I want to tell the reporter or anchor to go up to a Marine and ask him/her how he/she likes being a Soldier and see how the Marine reacts.
2. Higher standards of reporting.
On Monday the Trentonian (a Trenton, NJ newspaper) published an article about a police involved shooting (the officer discharged one shot). The reporter wrapped up the article with this prose: "Detectives in the copshop's Internal Affairs Unit have been summoned to investigate the incident,which is standard practice when a police officer unloads his or her heat." When I came upon that paragraph, I stopped. Certain I'd read it wrong, I went back and reread the paragraph. My first thought was, "Unloads his or her heat? You gotta be kidding me," followed by "An editor actually approved this copy?" For anyone that's interested, you can read the article in its entirety at http://tinyurl.com/5eepfa
3. Misleading headlines.
How many times have you gone to an online news site, clicked on a headline only to find the headline had nothing to do with the article? Or, the headline completely contradicted the article? I feel duped when this happens. One occurrence, I can tolerate, but after a second time, I stop visiting the site.
4. Don't be in a such a hurry to scoop.
It seems today's media is obsessed with scooping each other. I understand the concept of scooping (really, I do.) and that it's a fundamental part of journalism. However, it's gotten to the point that most of the time factual information is sacrificed for the sake of holding the title of "You heard/read it here first." I don't know about you folks, but I'd rather wait a little longer and get an accurate story, versus a quick dose of misinformation.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I believe persuasion begins with credibility. I look forward to reading what others have to say about this topic.
Happy writing,
Kim
2 comments:
Couldn’t agree with you more. Like many people reading this blog, I, in my lifetime, have been either directly involved with, or have had first-hand knowledge of a number of incidents which were reported on by various media. I don’t have an exact number, but let’s say thirty or so. I can truthfully say that every one of the events (uh, yes, that’s 100%) was inaccurately reported, and as often as not, was just plain made-up.
During the course of a several-day-long trial many years ago, a Kansas City newspaper reporter wrote daily articles which were, in effect, completely fabricated and steeply slanted in order to favor the defendant in the trial, a well-known figure at the time, whom the paper (although not most of the general public) had always supported. Every article was full of lies. I know this because I was present at the trial.
In approximately 1976 or 1977, a local television news reporter shoved a microphone in my face and began asking questions. The lead-in story on that channel’s five o’clock newscast that evening, had that very same reporter (without playing back my words, or showing film of me) misquoting me so completely, that everything I had actually told her was completely reversed. If I answered one of her questions with a “yes”, the reporter related that I’d answered, “no”. If I answered, “no”, she reported that I had instead stated, “yes.” She apparently wanted a story so desperately, that she was more than willing to intentionally lie about it on television.
A few years ago, I heard a radio reporter giving the location of a house fire in Kansas City. That evening a television reporter spoke of the same fire, but gave it a different location than that which had been on the radio. The next day the local newspaper reported that that same fire had been at a yet separate location from those, which either the radio or television had reported. I happened to be in the area of the house fire a day or so later, and went out of my way to determine exactly where it had been. You guessed it–-the actual location of the fire was at another location entirely. Three reports of the same incident were given by three separate segments of the media. Each report differed from the others. And yes-–each was inaccurate.
I figure that if each and every one of the stories I personally knew about, was reported inaccurately, then why would I bother to believe any media story at all?
‘Nuff said.
Larry
Larry, that's amazing, and really disturbing. I mean, bias is bad enough, but out-and-out lies are really troublesome. I wish you didn't have so much to share, but thanks for sharing it.
Post a Comment