A retrospective apology from me to millions of people out there

[Dd852]

Before FIRE I was a journalist and reported on, variously, the 1987 crash, Tiananmen in China, ASIAN financial crisis, 9/11, dot com crash , 2008 crash etc etc. This is the first one where I’ve been an observer instead of a pundit and boy, it is a revelation to see how much utter and complete cr@p is peddled as pure knowledge. It is really disheartening. And you know what? I know I did it too. Too many times I cloaked myself as an expert when I was in the dark; I pretended to have certainty when I had none. Sorry all. Just say “we don’t know”. Just say “it depends on a lot of factors, some of which we don’t understand “. That isn’t sexy, it might not sell or fill the space and time ... but it would be a lot more honest!

Heartfelt apologies! Don’t believe everything you read or watch!

 

[ckelly78z]

It's difficult to know facts in a fluid situation, especially when there are so many different perspectives on the same event, seen by different eyes.

 

[candrew]

No worries @Dd852, if you were reporting on this, I'd weigh whatever you or any other journalist reports against information that is provided by experts in public health, science, etc.

 

[audreyh1]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, and I always really appreciated the investigative journalism, and really miss it now because it seems to have become a rare commodity.

It is important to mention what is unknown when reporting on a situation.

Reading public health announcements from governors of various states it seems that many do mention the unknowns or where they don’t have answers yet, and I actually find that reassuring. Like, OK, we just don’t know that yet. I can accept it and move on.

 

[Aerides]

I think most of us just need to be a be more selective in what we decide to react to, and, definitely, what we share.

You know the old "if something sounds too good to be true" - well with this case it's more "if it sounds terrible..." worse than the main sources are painting, or particularly alarming, please validate before believing, changing your behavior, or sharing.

These days it's not so much those in the media maybe getting it wrong that I worry about, it's the armchair redditors, re-tweeters, re-postings that make bad info spread too widely. It's human nature to seek out info during trying times, but it's probably best to find - and stick with - a couple of vetted sources.

 

[Nemo2]

The only thing I believe is Nietzsche's "That which does not make us stronger kills us".

 

[MichaelB]

Not many professions where every output is subject to public scrutiny, recorded and preserved for history, and continually re-examined and judged in the future. This is a very tough profession.

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

In uncertainty viewers want answers and nobody wants to pay somebody to say I don't have any answers and so the guesses emerge. But no one who guesses and is supposed to know what they are talking about can say they are guessing or else they are out of a job.

It's a tough world we live in.

 

[Lewis Clark]

These days it's not so much those in the media maybe getting it wrong that I worry about, it's the armchair redditors, re-tweeters, re-postings that make bad info spread too widely.

+1

Unfortunately, the more we hear a particular piece of information, the more likely we are to believe it.

 

[MikeyMarks]

Thanks. I hope you post this far and wide on other platforms.

 

[Winemaker]

I learned this years ago when as one was involved with dealing with nationwide coal mine accidents/fatalities/fires/entrapments, the story reported was nothing but complete falsehoods, non-truths, and fake narratives.

 

[Markola]

I’ll take a free, obsessive press over the opposite any day. Thank you and all the other journalists.

 

[Midpack]

More than ever I corroborate stories using several other sources no matter what the original source. It’s amazing how much false information media puts out. They usually do it by presenting one side of the story more than outright lying, though some stoop to that too. And some is just pure sloppy, poorly vetted journalism.

News is a for profit business now first and foremost. There are very few who prioritize truly balanced news over profits.

There are some large mainstream media outlets that I simply never watch/read because they’re promoting an agenda and pandering to a like minded audience. They lie by omission without shame.

And I never believe a source I don’t know, and there are orders of magnitude more of them today than ever. Look how many were duped by false Facebook posts and it continues unabated today.

Too many people aren’t looking for news - they’re just looking for someone to validate the views they already hold (been in my sig line for years)...

 

[target2019]

It's nice to meet a journalist from The Onion, at last. I knew those stories sound fishy.
[emoji56]

 

[Mdlerth]

A little fire and brimstone from the Rev. Mdlerth

On behalf of the general public, I say to the OP "Apology accepted. You are forgiven. Go and sin no more."

But I vehemently disagree with most of the other posters who are giving the press a pass for errors. There isn't any accountability in the media today. When they push a story that turns out to be wrong, they don't admit fault and they don't correct it. Misinformation not only stays out there, but others pile on and amplify it.

Claiming that reporters face pressure to keep interesting headlines is specious. It doesn't justify inaccuracy or prevarication. In no other profession (except of course politics) is it okay to disguise conjecture as fact. Most of you would have been fired instantly from your jobs if you were found to be less than entirely truthful at work.

You expect error-free service delivery from bankers, doctors, engineers, police, teachers... even the poor clerk at the Wendy's drive-thru window has a higher threshold of acceptable accuracy than you get from much of the media.

Part of the problem stems from lack of competition in the industry. A half dozen media conglomerates own all the networks, major newspapers, radio stations, etc. It's easy and inexpensive for them to just read the AP or the NY Times and parrot whatever it says, even if it's dead wrong. If everybody does it, then no single organization is responsible.

But the bigger problem is that the ordinary public doesn't call them out and demand better. We excuse media irresponsibility and in doing so we collectively deserve what we get.

Hallelujah! Where's the Tylenol?

 

[pb4uski]

Before FIRE I was a journalist and reported on, variously, the 1987 crash, Tiananmen in China, ASIAN financial crisis, 9/11, dot com crash , 2008 crash etc etc. This is the first one where I’ve been an observer instead of a pundit and boy, it is a revelation to see how much utter and complete cr@p is peddled as pure knowledge. It is really disheartening. And you know what? I know I did it too. Too many times I cloaked myself as an expert when I was in the dark; I pretended to have certainty when I had none. Sorry all. Just say “we don’t know”. Just say “it depends on a lot of factors, some of which we don’t understand “. That isn’t sexy, it might not sell or fill the space and time ... but it would be a lot more honest!

Heartfelt apologies! Don’t believe everything you read or watch!

I always found it interesting to read newspaper articles on sporting events that I attended... I often wondered if I was at the same game the reporting was so poor.

So no free pass from me.... I loathe dishonesty. If you don't know then don't pretend to know... tell us what you know, what you think, what experts think and why you/they think it. Pretending to know does much more harm than good unless you happen to be a good guesser.

 

[Gumby]

I appreciate what you have written. It takes true strength of character to confess publicly. But we all share responsibility for these things. It is up to each of us to be more questioning and less credulous/gullible regarding the things we read and hear. We say in jest "it's on the internet, so it must be true" but consider how often we subconsciously make that exact assumption.

For everyone reading this - consider news stories about areas in which you have some expertise. Aren't they often wrong or misleading in critical ways? I would say I have the education and experience to be an expert in only three things - submarines, nuclear power plants and certain areas of the law. When I read articles about these, I constantly notice things that are incorrect or incomplete in ways that may inflame or incite. I saw this quite a bit in the coverage of the 2011 Fukishima incident.

This phenomenon doesn't stem from malice by journalists. Rather, it is a reflection that they are experts in journalism, not necessarily the things they are writing about. It takes years to truly understand an esoteric field like nuclear power (or, today, epidemiology and virology), but they have a deadline to publish. And, to be honest, boring doesn't sell newspapers. With the rise of the internet, the problem is only exacerbated. People who have no knowledge of or commitment to journalistic ethical standards are able to publish anything and everything they want without any gatekeeping or editorial function. They may be experts, but probably not.

So what can we do? Simply keep this factor in mind. When reading, ask "How can they know that?", "What have they not told me?" or "Do they speak in tones of absolute truth when that is not warranted?" and, most of all, "Does this make sense?" You don't have to be an expert to detect that the author may be overstepping the bounds of his or her actual knowledge. And one good thing about the internet is that you easily can do your own research when something you have read sounds, as Aerides notes, "too terrible to be true".

 

[EastWest Gal]

Apology accepted!

Another issue for journalists is that you are trained in journalism, not your subject matter. I see mistakes journalists make in reporting in the medical field. It cannot be helped. But if a journalist specializes in an area for a career, perhaps they could obtain additional education in their area of specialty.

It is a wake up call to see your former profession from the outside, isn't it?

I see massive fraud, waste, complacency, and bullying behavior by fellow physicians, in the medical field, but I saw a lot of it while still working. This is far more important than actual mistakes. To make mistakes is to be human. To deliberately be inaccurate for a higher paycheck is not.

Journalists may be encouraged to sensationalize stories to get more eyes on the story. Doctors may ask irrelevant medical history questions or fudge irrelevant physical exam findings (and not do that unnecessary part of the exam) in order to charge a higher level of service. Or simply bill a higher level of service and hope no one notices. The hospitals do the same. It is so systemic it seems normal. You probably felt that way too.

Thank you for coming clean. We are all very capable of fooling ourselves. Your apology is accepted. And welcome aboard!

 

[EastWest Gal]

I appreciate what you have written. It takes true strength of character to confess publicly. But we all share responsibility for these things. It is up to each of us to be more questioning and less credulous/gullible regarding the things we read and hear. We say in jest "it's on the internet, so it must be true" but consider how often we subconsciously make that exact assumption.

For everyone reading this - consider news stories about areas in which you have some expertise. Aren't they often wrong or misleading in critical ways? I would say I have the education and experience to be an expert in only three things - submarines, nuclear power plants and certain areas of the law. When I read articles about these, I constantly notice things that are incorrect or incomplete in ways that may inflame or incite. I saw this quite a bit in the coverage of the 2011 Fukishima incident.

This phenomenon doesn't stem from malice by journalists. Rather, it is a reflection that they are experts in journalism, not necessarily the things they are writing about. It takes years to truly understand an esoteric field like nuclear power (or, today, epidemiology and virology), but they have a deadline to publish. And, to be honest, boring doesn't sell newspapers. With the rise of the internet, the problem is only exacerbated. People who have no knowledge of or commitment to journalistic ethical standards are able to publish anything and everything they want without any gatekeeping or editorial function. They may be experts, but probably not.

So what can we do? Simply keep this factor in mind. When reading, ask "How can they know that?", "What have they not told me?" or "Do they speak in tones of absolute truth when that is not warranted?" and, most of all, "Does this make sense?" You don't have to be an expert to detect that the author may be overstepping the bounds of his or her actual knowledge. And one good thing about the internet is that you easily can do your own research when something you have read sounds, as Aerides notes, "too terrible to be true".

Well said Gumby! We were posting similar responses at the same time.

 

[MRG]

Thank you.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Even after fluid events have settled into the strata of history, cause and effect can remain unclear. Journalism is often called the first draft of history, so it's always subject to correction. Unfortunately, many journalistic institutions are reluctant to admit their fallibility.

 

[eytonxav]

It seems like journalism has transformed into opinionism. The rush to report something right or wrong seems to take precedence over due diligence and fact checking. Also, slanting news to fit a particular viewpoint of the media outlet is equally dangerous, but this is what we get. Best one can do is listen to the various reports and then use your own common sense/thinking as to what the actual facts are or at least what you would be willing to accept as fact.

 

[Chuckanut]

Dd852, I am happy you have had this reality check. I suspect most of us have figured it out quite a while ago.

I trust very little I hear from the modern media/press. Even the Grey Lady herself is peddling nonsense and opinions as fact. NPR/PBS? Hardly sources of objective reporting. Most obvious is that the line between reporting 'just the facts' and reporter opinions has been blurred to the point it is no longer noticeable. .



As the former host of Face the Nation, John Dickerson, said:

The press did all that good work ruining its reputation on its own, and we can have a long conversation about what created that.

If I was the modern news media I would end this by saying:

An unidentified source high up in a prominent news organization has said that a third party probably has heard from an anonymous source close to higher-ups that a media representative might say "It's a shame."

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

It seems like journalism has transformed into opinionism. The rush to report something right or wrong seems to take precedence over due diligence and fact checking. Also, slanting news to fit a particular viewpoint of the media outlet is equally dangerous, but this is what we get. Best one can do is listen to the various reports and then use your own common sense/thinking as to what the actual facts are or at least what you would be willing to accept as fact.

Part of the issue is the nonstop 24-hour news cycle on cable TV. Frankly, that's a lot of time to fill for a limited staff. It would be nice if the anchors could harvest interesting grass-roots stories from around the world, but that would take a vast amount of time and effort. It's a lot cheaper to round up the usual suspects who are good at bloviating.

The other upshot that grows out of this hothouse is overdramatization of events. Of course, the stock market is prime fodder for high drama.

 

[Bir48die]

For me it’s just been the loss of objectivity. No one can write a straight story. It’s so subtle. Many times it’s in the title itself which to some would read harmless. Then it’s in the wording of a few sentences or a paragraph that show the bias or what the reporter wants you to think. I like many are skeptical of these and can spot them easily. It just frustrating not to get the facts without the push.