Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Can you try and not engage in bush bashing for just one thread!  J/K |
OK, change it to Carter. I don't care
Quote:
|
lol, anyway, I'm divided on whether journalists should do this. I used to get upset when they didn't report that a contradiction between the claim and the reality existed, but then I came to realize that perhaps it's the reader's responsibility to come to a conclusion--even if it's wrong.
|
It's the reader's responsibility to draw conclusions yes, but he can't do that unless he's given accurate information. If the only source of information for someone is your newspaper, and your newspaper only reports "Bush says Iraq has WMD's" then it's not possible for the reader to draw a correct conclusion.
It's the press's responsibility to give the accurate facts to the reader.
It's the reader's responsibility to decide what to do about it.
When Bush was pushing the WMD issue, it was the press's responsibility to call bullshit on it. We didn't, and that was a grave error, because if we had, perhaps the people would have made a different decision, knowing the real facts.
Had the press said "wait a sec- he's saying there's WMD's but there's not a shred of evidence to support it and in fact if you look at the evidence he's showing you can see it's crap" they'd have been doing their job. Had the press then gone on to say "and we should vote the sonofabitch out of office for it!" then we'd have been displaying a bias.
Quote:
|
So where does that leave me: I had to try and reconcile these thoughts with, and I share your view on this I think, what I considered to be irresponsible journalism. That they actually have an obligation to relay the facts as we know them. At least, they should remind the audience that such facts contradict such and such or whether there's a lack of evidence for the assertion. By relaying an inaccurate assertion as if it were truthful and accurate, the journalist gives credence to the statement and, in my mind, such complacency means they then share responsibility...
|
Bingo!
Quote:
|
...so the example I came to think would work within these contraints would be, bush says the sky is purple. However, evidence points to the fact that it is actually blue, we've always held this to be the case, and we invite you to go look for yourself...[maybe even throw in a hearty "it's this reporters professional opinion that bush is lying" (or mistaken, as the case may be)].
|
That's exactly what the press should be doing, and it's exactly what they're not doing.