Media Monday – March 2, 2009

Can You Believe What You Read? – Part III

Over the past few weeks we’ve examined this question from several angles.  In Part I we looked at print media, with a special examination of Salisbury’s Daily Times.  If there was ever a poster child for the need to read critically (and sceptically), the Daily Times is it.  In Part II we examined the blogosphere.  As expected, there are problems.  However, as we have demonstrated, the print media have a tough time claiming the “moral high ground” (with the exception of a relatively few instances in the blogosphere).

Today we are scheduled to discuss the rest of the electronic media – radio and television.  However, this should be relatively short and sweet.  The lessons learned over the past two weeks apply to radio and television as well.  We all owe it to ourselves to be more critical in our consumption of information – regardless of the means of delivery.  As the Dan Rather scandal and pretty much everything on MSNBC demonstrates, there is plenty of bias and sloppy reporting to go around.  Liberals have been screaming about FoxNEWS since the day Roger Ailes flipped the switch on.  While I have been a fan of FoxNEWS over the years, even I have to admit that their coverage has been getting a tad skewed lately (both left and right depending on the reporter).

Note that I am not referring to opinion shows.  They are what they are.  As long as they are open about being op-ed and not straight news none of us should quarrel.  This applies to all media, including that pariah of the left – TALK RADIO.  Talk radio is opinion and should be treated as such.  Experience will dictate whether a particular personality’s opinion is well formed or not.  But talk radio is often a sympton of a problem that motivated me to write this series:

NEWS SHOULD BE NEWS.

NEWS SHOULD NOT EXIST TO AFFIRM OUR OPINIONS

This is a problem that afflcts us all – left, right and center.  We may start to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to hear an alternative voice.  But over time, we find ourselves listening because these people affirm our own opinions.  They may have even helped to form those opinions, but now they merely affirm them.  We feel good.  Someone is “thinking like I do”.  It is at that point that we have lost our objectivity.  It is at that point where news and opinion have become propoganda.

The messenger does not bear responsibility for this.  We do.  The message may be the same, but we have ceased to examine that message for any evidence or truth.

Because I am a big fan of Limbaugh I am disturbed when Rush makes statements like “I hope President Obama doesn’t succeed” and then claims that he never made the statement when the going gets tough.  He made a mistake.  All he had to do was admit and then move on.

The relativistic society in which we find ourselves has changed too much of media from methods of delivering news (and opinion) channels for receiving our daily dose of personal affirmation.  However, we need to lay the blame where it belongs – on us.

Markets work.  When we demand fair and accurate coverage of news; when we demand well argued and articulate op-ed; then we will start receiving it.  As long as we are willing consumers of rubbish, we can all just keep swimming in the cesspool.

PS -

I also want to highly recommend Professor Richard Vatz’s post in this morning’s Red Maryland.  As usual, my Red Maryland colleague does a great job analyzing the media.

Sphere: Related Content