2008.06.29
Discuss Radmacher's column
Don't discount all news sources
Dan Radmacher
Radmacher is the editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.
Sometimes before I write a column, I like to bat around the topic on blogs. It's a good way to test arguments for weaknesses and to explore various aspects of a debate. In doing that for my June 22 on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on whether "enemy combatants" should be able to file habeas corpus petitions, I ran into something depressing: a mind completely closed to anything put forth in the media.
Read more.
RSS feed 
I think there are elements of truth to both Dan and WD's positions. The media over recent years has been plagued by incidents of bad reporting, biased reporting, false reporting, plagiarism and just flat out forged stories.
But should this serve to indict all members of the media? Probably not. I'm sure there are unbiased honest reporters out there.
However, the media is now suffering from a disease they created, and on more than one level.
On the surface, dishonest and biased reporting has led the public to distrust the media.
But at a deeper level, long term media practices have led society to stereotype all members of identifiable groups. Typically the media only reports, or gives more attention to bad things, especially misconduct of any sort by any public official or otherwise respected institution. And in so doing, the media has created a society that opts to discount the virtue of entire institutions because of the bad acts of a few individuals.
Need examples? Look at society's perception of government officials. No longer are they viewed as dedicated public servants who give their time to serve society. Instead the stereotype is that all government workers are corrupt and lazy, earning big paychecks and doing no work.
Or similarly, look at law enforcement as an institution. No longer does the public respect law enforcement officers as individuals who do a hard, dangerous job for low pay. Now the public sees them as bullies, or as lazy and corrupt, just driving around in their air conditioned cars all day harassing innocent people.
You can see this with virtually any traditional institution in society. Two things have lead society to sterotype in this manner. First, there are bad apples in any profession. But more importantly, through biased, one-sided reporting, and by giving huge emphasis to the few bad apples with no acknowledgment that the individual's bad acts do not represent the entire profession, the media encourages society to believe the worst about these institiutions.
The media has helped create this society that only sees the bad and never the good in its own institutions. Now the media find themselves included in the "bad" group. It may not be fair, but it certainly is poetic.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 29, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Not to worry, Dan. It's not like Americans will go without news if they don't trust a source; they'll simply get their news from a source they do trust.
People see your newspaper and the Post, the Times, and the Big Three networks as folks pushing a political agenda. That's why they don't trust anything you say. You cherry pick sources sypathetic with your ideology, such as AP or the New York Times, then tout their information as "solid evidence."
Comment by Josh — June 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am
The main thrust of your column today seems to be a lament of the public distrust of major (and not so major) media outlets. Journalism seems to have taken a turn from fact finding and reporting to stories more opinion and agenda oriented. Here are a couple of recent examples from your own paper. A couple of days ago the RT ran a story on free air conditioners for the needy. It was, on the surface, a nice puff piece on peoples lives being helped by Social Services, not to mention $7 million from the taxpayers. But there were glaring omissions in the reporting of the story. The recipient was a mother of a 1 1/2 year old child. The mother had a disability (severe asthma) and a different last name than the child. Who fathered the child? Husband, boyfriend, baby daddy? No mention of this in the article. Oh yes, she's also 6 months pregnant again. By whom? The reader is left to fill in the blanks. Would more details of this tainted the story, i.e. made the readers wonder why a single mother with seemingly no means of support (diasbility usually translates into no job) be making another baby. Was the omission of these and other facts pertinent to the story agenda driven or just plain laziness by the reporter?
Example #2: A few weeks ago the RT ran a front page piece about a man who was gunned down late at night at a convienience store on Melrose. The theme of the article semed to be that the victim was loved and respected by all in the neighborhood complete with pictures of his 3 year old god-daughter kissing his photo.Also in the article, neighbors were interviewed and wondered how and why this murder happened. Fine. What was omitted by the reporter was that he had already been imprisoned twice on drug offenses. Can anyone spell "drug deal gone bad"? Also omitted in the story was that this 29 year old man was father to 5 children. Was he married? Were there mulitple mothers? How convenient to leave these facts out in order to not tarnish the character of the murder victim.
To sum this up, how are we the readers to know how many of the facts are left out of any story we read. You mentioned high ethical standards toward the end of your column. Honesty is one of them.
Comment by Nick — June 29, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Hi Dan,
I thought your article was just fine and I think you do a good job.
Your still learning like the rest of us and thankfully, you have not given up on your continued education.
Truth in the media is a big issue however, since it was the independent press that reported on the lies of this administration that led us to war, before anyone knew it.
Yet, two reporters from Knight Rider got it right, but no one was picking up on it.
Is it any wonder people are becoming mistrustful of corporate media? It is sad, but true, as folks discover that corporate media does not really investigate what governemnt says. Many, but not all, simply write whatever an official says as fact without question.
There are many reasons for this, as you well know. Profit being the main one, as money is no longer there for reporters to travel and investigate very much at all. Plus, the big boys are afraid they will lose their access if they question to hard and their jobs are on the line. Fear in the press is an issue and a very large one.
A simple example is the smearing of Scott, former press secretary of this administration, Admiral Fallon and many others.
I dig as deep as my sources allow. I am not a reporter, but an historian and I try to get the inside information.
I don't trust all of the corporate media either, as they are often wrong, but never in doubt, to quote a lyric from Cheryl wheeler, but at present, there is some serious stuff going on and I hope you will follow in the tradition of those I remember well. Edward R. Murrow, Studs Turkel, Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Ray McGovern and Amy Goodman.
It's really pretty simple. If you can bring the truth to people so they can be well informed, or do you lose your job if you do?
This is the question for reporters today.
Thanks for publishing my editorial last Tuesday by the way.
Sincerely,
Bill Johnson
Comment by William Johnson — June 29, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Case in point:
http://www.local6.com/news/16738523/detail.html
"Vandals spray-painted "Obama Smokes Crack" and other hate messages on 60 city vehicles parked across the street from City Hall in downtown Orlando."
I cannot the imagine the media labeling "Bush smokes Crack" as a "hate" message. Perhaps the reporter just dangled a participle but it causes one to think.
Comment by Henry — June 29, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Good one, Henry
The thing is, Obama admitted doing cocaine and pot, yet this "straight" news article calls it a "hate message".
Comment by Josh — June 29, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Within a few weeks, it will be a Hate Crime to call Barry Obama a "muslim".
And the media will toss the First Amendment under the bus to protect their candidate.
But you'll still be able to say that Bush is a "chimp" and caused 9/11 and Katrina.
Comment by Henry — June 29, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Dan: I agree with the thrust of your argument: it is sad when we indict ALL media for the isn of some. But, like
WD I admit to a reflex skepticism of "mainstream media" because you refuse to admit to inherent bias as if your own worldview does not influence your reporting. Why not admit that you have personal bias and proactively seek to overcome your decidedly one-sided political and philosophical bents?
Comment by Tyler — June 29, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
As other folks have pointed out, an objective reader of the press has reason to be wary of what he/she reads. Events are news but so too are polls-polls with an agenda. For years we've had to listen to stories about BUSh being AWOL from his Guard unit because records from the 60s were incomplete. Yet when Kerry's military records and purple hearts were questioned, the disparaging term SWIFT BOATING came to be. For the past year we've been hammered repeatedly about the high cost of gas. Again it's Bush's OIL BUDDIES making a killing. But no real analysis on how we got to $140/barrel and the impact of Clinton vetoes/blocking ANWR and other drilling- or the allowing of oil companies to merge from the mid/late 90s. The press screams about the TREASURE expended on "Bush's War on terrorism" but do we ever get an analysis on the spending and success of our decades long war on poverty? And can anyone say we have seen the same amount of coverage in IRAQ when cars burned after a bombing and NOW when there's a real estate boom in parts of IRAQ due to the success of the surge? And who could forget how the press slammed our military for the "seemingly rampant" torture of detainees--photos splashed across your TV screen and front page chronicling this PANDEMIC ABUSE. But if you dug around one could find the number of prisoner complaints ranged about 1% of processed prisoners.
So pardon the objective reader for being skeptical of what is produced as mainstream media news. All too often its slanted, tabloid level mule muffins.
Comment by BUD — June 29, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
What continues to amaze me is that everyone here seems to be blaming the media on how their own opinion is formulated. Is it too much to ask of an idividual to be able to take in the raw data (or in the case of politician the raw garbage) and process it for themselves without having to have any media outlet put their perceived spin on it?
Have we become so inept at thinking?
I've been listening to a lot of the campaign rhetoric and it strikes me that none of the candidates...not one...has an ad discussing what they would do to solve a problem. Rather, their ads point out the perceived faults, voting records, religious affiliation (or lack thereof) of their opponents.
Why doesn't someone define one, two or three problems we are facing and then come up with a definitive plan to solve it? I don't think we have politicians who can reason through a problem and then put forward an articulate and well reasoned solution.
Pitiful...just plain pitiful.
Comment by Will — June 30, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Another case in point
Obama's for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html
An Obama supporter may be tempted to discount the source rather than investigate the data.
Comment by Henry — June 30, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Will,
I agree with you 100%. People should analyze all the facts and formulate their own opinions. However, sad commentary though it is, many in society are either too lazy, naive or ignorant to do the research for themselves.
Instead they rely on others to do it for them. Typically for issues of public concern they turn to the media, for that is the media's stated mission.
Unfortunately, today's media by and large only presents one side of most arguments. They put a liberal slant on many stories and blend opinion presented as fact into columns in order to influence the public.
Don't kid yourself. What you and Blue John claim about Fox News is equally true of all media outlets. The shows target the most easily influenced audiences and make every effort to not just present news, but to guide public opinion. Personally, I find it offensive. Like you, I believe I can make up my own mind without someone telling me what I should think.
Unfortunately, the days of an objective press or electronic media presenting cold, hard facts and letting the public reach its own conclusions are gone my friend.
Instead we have reporters, editors and columnists convinced of their own brilliance and moral superiority. Despite the tired old protestations of separate news and opinion divisions, even the news writers and reporters can't resist using colorful prose to guide opinion just a little.
The true irony is that the media seems to think society would be best served by secular progressive socialism. To that end, they would probably put themselves out of business. Just look how well a free media has fared historically in other socialists nations. Remember TASS in the USSR. Socialist States typically take control of the media so as to spoonfeed the 'appropriate' message to the public.
The public's distrust of the media is just a symptom of the 'disease' the MSM has by and large created.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 30, 2008 @ 9:34 am