MickeyNews Weak
Humans aren't omniscient; we can't directly observe what goes on beyond our own particular line of sight- and the stuff on the horizon can be more than a bit obscured. Among the myriad media available to us is a category called "News," which is supposed to be an accurate, real account of what is happening elsewhere in our country and our world.
Of course "fair and balanced" is an ideal, one which a responsible journalist should strive for. It can never happen; any given human reporter is going to arrive to cover a story with their own emotional preconceptions and baggage. One can try to remain objective (and a very rare few actually manage to do just that. Usually.) but everyone has an axe to grind. And even when the reporter is able to rise above their own personal biases, there are always the editors with their own slant ready and waiting to "massage" the facts to fit their viewpoint.
I accept this: The news media is run and staffed primarily by humans, who have their own emotions and agendas. The best solution so far is to sample a wide variety of news sources. Some lean to the left, some to the right so a wide sample should give you some idea of what's really going down. Granted that some news sources are less than meticulous about their facts... then again, almost all news businesses cover politics, so a primary source of their info are liars to begin with.
This is where almost every news channel falls down. To cover the news one must have access to the politicians (and related mouthpieces) that are making it. Keeping their access is very dear to their bottom line, which is why reporters are almost always so insipidly deferential to the most weaselly of politicians. Just once I'd love to see a reporter stand up and ask "Mr. (President/Senator/Congressman/Mayor/School Board Superintendent), do you keep your head that far up your own ass for the warmth? Or for the view?"
Another problem is that so many news programs and magazines (and especially newspapers) are mass media; they're trying to simplify things down to the level where an "average adult" (meaning someone with what would have been considered a sixth-grade education twenty years ago) can understand it. I remember one newscast where the anchors were going so far overboard to simplify their report on a new astronomical discovery I was wondering why they were even trying to present it... and then I realized that they were using "star system" and "galaxy" interchangeably. Oversimplification is one thing, but when they're going to get things flat wrong they really shouldn't even bother.
So, we live in an imperfect world with an imperfect news industry. Part of its very foundation prevents us from getting the whole, unvarnished truth, but by now we should all be quite used to dealing with non-perfect systems and organizations. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the news... just don't believe everything you see on TV.
Of course "fair and balanced" is an ideal, one which a responsible journalist should strive for. It can never happen; any given human reporter is going to arrive to cover a story with their own emotional preconceptions and baggage. One can try to remain objective (and a very rare few actually manage to do just that. Usually.) but everyone has an axe to grind. And even when the reporter is able to rise above their own personal biases, there are always the editors with their own slant ready and waiting to "massage" the facts to fit their viewpoint.
I accept this: The news media is run and staffed primarily by humans, who have their own emotions and agendas. The best solution so far is to sample a wide variety of news sources. Some lean to the left, some to the right so a wide sample should give you some idea of what's really going down. Granted that some news sources are less than meticulous about their facts... then again, almost all news businesses cover politics, so a primary source of their info are liars to begin with.
This is where almost every news channel falls down. To cover the news one must have access to the politicians (and related mouthpieces) that are making it. Keeping their access is very dear to their bottom line, which is why reporters are almost always so insipidly deferential to the most weaselly of politicians. Just once I'd love to see a reporter stand up and ask "Mr. (President/Senator/Congressman/Mayor/School Board Superintendent), do you keep your head that far up your own ass for the warmth? Or for the view?"
Another problem is that so many news programs and magazines (and especially newspapers) are mass media; they're trying to simplify things down to the level where an "average adult" (meaning someone with what would have been considered a sixth-grade education twenty years ago) can understand it. I remember one newscast where the anchors were going so far overboard to simplify their report on a new astronomical discovery I was wondering why they were even trying to present it... and then I realized that they were using "star system" and "galaxy" interchangeably. Oversimplification is one thing, but when they're going to get things flat wrong they really shouldn't even bother.
So, we live in an imperfect world with an imperfect news industry. Part of its very foundation prevents us from getting the whole, unvarnished truth, but by now we should all be quite used to dealing with non-perfect systems and organizations. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the news... just don't believe everything you see on TV.
