Thursday, August 26, 2004
That makes two of us....
Columbia Journalism Review's (CJR) Campaign Desk has a piece today which basically echos my thoughts from yesterday on the media falling down on the job when it comes to reporting stories.(via Atrios)
CJR:
Campaign Desk has written many times about the perils of "he said/she said" journalism, the practice of reporters parroting competing rhetoric instead of measuring it for veracity against known facts. In the wake of the first SBVFT spot early this month, cable news programs for the most part offered viewers two talking heads, one on each side of the issue, to debate the merits of the claims. Verifiable facts were rarely offered to viewers -- despite the fact that military records supporting Kerry's version of events were readily available. Instead of acting as filters for the truth, reporters nodded and attentively transcribed both sides of the story, invariably failing to provide context, background, or any sense of which claims held up and which were misleading.
I consider myself a reasonably bright woman but I'm no journalism expert. CJR is an expert. How is it that someone like myself and a journalism expert can see these real and fundamental problems with the media...but the media doesn't? Or maybe the better question is, do they see it and don't care to fix it because it's not a moneymaker to be a filter for the truth?
|
CJR:
Campaign Desk has written many times about the perils of "he said/she said" journalism, the practice of reporters parroting competing rhetoric instead of measuring it for veracity against known facts. In the wake of the first SBVFT spot early this month, cable news programs for the most part offered viewers two talking heads, one on each side of the issue, to debate the merits of the claims. Verifiable facts were rarely offered to viewers -- despite the fact that military records supporting Kerry's version of events were readily available. Instead of acting as filters for the truth, reporters nodded and attentively transcribed both sides of the story, invariably failing to provide context, background, or any sense of which claims held up and which were misleading.
I consider myself a reasonably bright woman but I'm no journalism expert. CJR is an expert. How is it that someone like myself and a journalism expert can see these real and fundamental problems with the media...but the media doesn't? Or maybe the better question is, do they see it and don't care to fix it because it's not a moneymaker to be a filter for the truth?
Return to Main
