Global warming might affect Hawaii area -- HONOLULU, June 8 (UPI) -- …many Northwestern Hawaiian Islands might be submerged by 2100 because of global warming…
Is that an inflammatory headline? How do you disprove an unproven premise? Does the lack of physical evidence disprove the premise? Or does it add to the seriousness of the supposition? Isn't there enough real news happening to keep the Supposition Press busy?
There is a disturbing trend in news reporting, recently. Supposition.
Will gas prices double?
Will the polar icecaps melt?
Will there be race riots if ( _________ ) is acquitted?
And the beauty of the Supposition Press is that nothing needs to be verified. No one can be sued for libel. There are no sources to protect. And any crank with an agenda can be cited as an expert. All of the rules of fair play and decency are out the window. It does not matter if the supposition is faulty or if panic ensues. The questions were asked and awareness was raised.
In the hands of an agenda driven press, this can be a devastating tool. Let's say, hypothetically (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), that the media is trying to discredit the Administration. Rather than doing the correct and the more difficult thing of reporting the actual facts as unbiased journalists should, the Supposition Press poses a series of what if scenarios.
Will the housing bubble burst?
Will Wall Street react badly to certain developments?
Will we be ready if a tsunami hits the west coast?
All designed to chip away at the public's confidence and trust and all of them unanswerable questions driven by wishful thinking. Their hope being that by raising awareness they will shift public opinion on the basis of mere supposition.
The facts are no longer relevant. They openly talk about the spin and talking points. In the creation of The Big Lie, Joseph Goebbels said that if you told a lie often enough, people would eventually believe it. There are actually people, right now in America, who do not believe terrorist hijacked planes on September 11, 2001 and attacked The World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They would rather believe in a government conspiracy.
Sometimes it seems as if the press is taking side bets.
"I'll bet you 20 bucks I can get the price of gas up by .05 by Friday."
"$50 says I can make the market drop a hundred points in the same time."
Journalism used to be, by nature, rather heartless. Impersonal. Dispassionate. Nothing of the Journalist ever got into the story. Election results, kidnappings, executions and bake sales all had to be reported with the same impartiality. Who, what, where, when, why and how were the by-words.
So I fear for this nation. We are faced with a new tyranny from an unexpected source in the form of a press that is no longer free. In a misguided effort to inject their feelings into their stories they have becomes slaves to the gods of their agenda. They can no longer distinguish between their desired reality and the true facts. They have moved beyond the unpleasantness of being heartless and have embraced the unintended consequence of having lost their journalistic soul.
6 comments:
Let's say that President Bush issues a stern warning to the leader of Iraq. He appears before the UN several times, declaring that country's obstinance of searches and declarations. He issues a deadline for an invasion. A newspaper issues a suppositional headline: "U.S. may go to war with Iraq."
My question: How is that headline wrong?
As a member of the media, I deal with people's biases daily. I get it from both sides: Conservatives think the media is liberal, liberals think the media is conservative. Your bias jades an objective view of the story—unfortunately, you haven't left a link to the story, so I don't know how good the story is. So, excuse me while I make some suppositions: You don't believe global warming exists, you think the media is liberal and you think the Hawaii headline is meant to undermine confidence, etc.
All that's fine. I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But here's the thing: Anything can happen. Flying monkeys may infest Hawaii. Don Ho might be a super-villian bent on triggering volcanoes to destroy Oahu. The media reports on things that at least have a realistic chance of occurring. That takes supposition, but suppositions can save lives as often as they can be flat-out wrong.
I know there is no way a story of mine can change your opinion. Your pre-set opinions will dictate how you read between the lines. And there is not a thing I can do about that. It's my job to give you the facts. And if the facts indicate that an event "might" happen, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't report them.
To mojoe,
Ilove your last line in the comment you made "And if the facts indicate that an event "might" happen, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't report them." The only trouble is that you have your own agenda and view on things and you will be selective on what "events might happen" that you will report on. When have you ever reported on anything that was contrary to your beliefs? Your arrogance is showing in that you seem to think that you have this devine right of knowledge as to what to pick and choose to write about as to which events may happen. Your arrogance continues when you presume to "know" that no matter what you say you will not be able to change Johhny's opinion. Easy way to dismiss what you don't want to hear and to maintain your beliefs. This is something that everybody is guilty of so don't feel like you are being picked on alone.
@ Al: I didn't take your response
I have no divine right of knowledge. I have the same rights as you to get facts and information about our government and leaders. The only difference is that I have ink by the barrel and paper by the roll at my disposal. With that comes an awesome responsibility to stick to the facts.
But you've assumed I have an agenda. That is the exact same kind of supposition that our kind blog-host laments.
The problem is you assume (another supposition) everyone looks at the world through the colored lenses of their own beliefs. That is simply not true. You ask if I have reported on anything contrary to my beliefs. The answer: Yes. Many times. I would venture to say many of my colleagues in print journalism (I won't dare to defend TV media) are just like me, in that respect. Take stem cell research...though I am for it, I want to hear why someone would be against it. I want them to present the best argument possible, so that the debate is balanced.
Our job is not to sway beliefs, so our own beliefs are irrelevant. Our job is to present facts, because—let's face it—opinions may change based on a news report, but not beliefs. I trust people to make up their own minds how to feel. If I tried to pander to their beliefs, my reports wouldn't be worth the paper on which they are printed.
@ Al: Durn typos. That first sentence should have read, "I didn't take your response personally. If I'm gonna throw rocks, I'll be ready to dodge a few myself. :)"
Mojoe you are done in by your own words and you fail to or choose not see your own bias. If you had not taken what I said as personal you would not have replied. Do you really expect people to beleive that you have the machine like ability to just sort through the facts and spew them out in a totally impartial manner? To support your arrogant belief in devine knowledge you lump yourself in with other members of the printed journalism as being pure and clean while labeling the TV media as being suspect. I do agree with your view about the TV media but it also flows over to the printed journalism faction too. What separates the two? Are only the pure and clean hired to be journalists and the chaf are dispatched to the TV media as you would have us believe? As for presenting the facts, you have made yourself the judge of what is relevant and what isn't and set the priority for the facts reported and you don't view this as being influenced by your own personal bias. I admit to bias on things and knowing that makes me take a look at the alternate view of things to give me a better chance of knowing what is closer to the correct answer on things. You can't admit to bias and therefore your (biased) view is what rules you and what you write. Can a person with a drug or alcohol problem be helped if they can't admit that they have a problem or a journalist who claims no partiality?
Nice dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you as your information.
Post a Comment