A retrospective apology from me to millions of people out there

[Tailgate]

I'm 7 years removed from the news business. I like how Neil deGrasse Tyson characterizes 'truth'.. to paraphrase:



There are 3 kinds of truth.
Truth that is objective is true whether or not you believe it. (Science)
Truth that is subjective is an opinion about what you believe is true. (Religion)
Truth that is repeated over and over until you believe it's true whether it is or is not. (politics, claims in pursuit of profit)



Media today consists of the 2nd and 3rd types of 'truth' and very little of the 1st. The public's right and need-to-know has been overridden by ratings and profit.

 

[ER Eddie]

Humility in the face of the unknown and unpredictable isn't journalism's strong suit, but then, it isn't human beings' strong suit, either. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable, and so we'd much rather be sure of ourselves, confident in our predictions. It makes us feel more in control.

And who's going to listen to someone who says "I don't know, it's too hard to predict, it is too complicated"? He doesn't know what he's talking about! Get an expert in here to tell us what will happen! The more confident he sounds, the more right he must be.

I think it's exacerbated by social media, because there are so many opinionaters. You've got to proclaim things in bold, confident tones to get any hearing. A person who suggests we really don't know and can't predict ... well, he'll be buried by the noise of all the confident experts.

 

[ERD50]

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?

Agreed. Apology accepted from OP. Now, does the OP have any suggestions on how this can be improved? Like the post above, I think it is the public that must make things change, and that doesn't look likely, as long as there are vocal minorities.

I think social media distorts things. A few screamers on each side makes it seem to some that the entire country is divided. Calm speakers get no attention.


bold mine...

.... 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)...

When was news not a for profit business first and foremost? I think this is a little rose-colored glasses rear-view mirror viewpoint. OP is going back to 1987, before social media was out there. I've read that even the Sinclair Lewis "The Jungle" writings included a significant amount of fiction, for the click-bait equivalent of the day.

As far as sources, I trust no source to tell me about an event. My advice to everyone is, if you hear of something that you feel is important and is going to affect your thinking, ignore it unless/until you can find an actual original unedited source itself, not the reporting of the info. This is easier today due to youtube.

I will sometimes listen to the sources I know are biased (which I consider to be ALL of them), just so I'm aware of the trash they peddle. Then when someone says "Wow, what such and such said is really awful", I can say - "Ummm, you heard an edited version of what was said - in the same breath that person said "xyz", which gives a completely different (and non-exciting) view.

Go to the source, the unedited source, or just ignore it. Your blood pressure will thank me.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

....

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. ...

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. ...

Journalists may be encouraged to sensationalize stories to get more eyes on the story. ...

I agree with much of what you wrote, but I'm not willing to give journalists a pass as much as you are.

It's their job to take a complex subject, and make it approachable. That may be near impossible for some topics, then just admit it, and break it down to whatever level is possible. But a good journalist will work with the experts to make sure what they are reporting is not misleading. Few seem to do that.

You don't need to be an expert in the field, you need to be an expert at condescending information and making it accessible, with the help of your expert sources. I think that is called "journalism".

I won't give them a pass because they have a deadline, or have to draw clicks. Do you give a car mechanic, or a plumber, or an electrician a pass for sloppy work, because they didn't have time or couldn't make money for doing it right?

And to top it off the "press" holds themselves up on a pedestal, claiming 1st amendment rights, and so on. They are a bit full of themselves, IMO.

As a retired EE, people will ask me technical questions. It takes a bit of effort, but it's not impossible to scale the reply to the knowledge the person has. And sometimes the answer really is, "It's not something you are really going to understand without a fairly deep knowledge of electronics. But I can tell you this...".

There's no point in giving info they won't understand, and it would be wrong to give them false info just to appease them. The press should be held to that standard as well.

-ERD50

 

[38Chevy454]

OP just proves why so many distrust the media these days.
I am glad OP has seen the other side, and I will accept the apology. Unfortunately there are thousands more just like him currently in the business, so I don't expect any change in the news.

 

[Markola]

There were never any halcyon days when we got the The Truth from journalistic outlets in the way that we might some kind of engineering manual. 19th century newspapers all existed to promote an explicitly partisan view. What is different today is the volume, variety and constancy of global outlets at our finger tips rather one or two local daily newspapers, which were biased but had the advantage of regional information monopolies.

There never has been and never will be a source of “objective” information posters here seem to be calling for. And there is more excellent journalism happening today than ever before, one just has to find it. I’d rather live in this chaotic country of guaranteed freedom of the press and freedom of speech than Russia with its official Putin mouthpieces. Personally, I consume respected, traditional center left and center right papers and magazines and consider everything else suspect, whether farther left or right. YMMV.

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't doubt that there has been malice in news reporting, or intentional distorting of the truth.

Most often it's an opinionated reporting of a fact.

And most things are so complex, that a reporter may be just in a group of blind men describing an elephant after touching it.

It's up to me to find various sources and to learn for myself.

 

[Gumby]

Humility in the face of the unknown and unpredictable isn't journalism's strong suit, but then, it isn't human beings' strong suit, either. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable, and so we'd much rather be sure of ourselves, confident in our predictions. It makes us feel more in control.

And who's going to listen to someone who says "I don't know, it's too hard to predict, it is too complicated"? He doesn't know what he's talking about! Get an expert in here to tell us what will happen! The more confident he sounds, the more right he must be.

I think it's exacerbated by social media, because there are so many opinionaters. You've got to proclaim things in bold, confident tones to get any hearing. A person who suggests we really don't know and can't predict ... well, he'll be buried by the noise of all the confident experts.

One of the hallmarks of a real expert is her willingness to admit the limits of her knowledge and that answers come in shades of gray. That is why you'll hear them say consistently, things like "if we assume _________, then ....." or "in most cases, it works like ....." or "what we have found to date is ....".

Sadly, we the public don't want that. We want somebody to make things simple - black and white, yes or no. Most of us do not appreciate or desire nuance.

 

[braumeister]

One of the hallmarks of a real expert

Back the olden days, we used to say the definition of an expert was someone who didn't know any more than you did, but came from out of town and had color slides.

 

[Nemo2]

Back the olden days, we used to say the definition of an expert was someone who didn't know any more than you did, but came from out of town and had color slides.

And we used to say that an 'ex' was a has been, and a 'spurt' was a drip under pressure.

 

[skipro33]

The press has become today's used car salesman; hawking their wares to any rube who buys into their sensationalism. Last night on NBC News With Lester Holt, two men who ran a restaurant were being interviewed. The reporter from NBC asked them, "is this the new new normal?" To which they both looked at the other and with fear in their eyes, said they hoped not! Up to then, they never considered this more than a short term issue. But the reporter now made this into a fearful, new normal for these men and probably for lots of viewers. How irresponsible to bait a person with a totally baseless fear mongering question like that!

There is no such thing as a respected news source. They all have their own greedy goal in mind to sell more advertising time by what ever means. Usually that means sensationalistic headlines and self propagating stories like 'is this the new normal?'.

 

[Chuckanut]

And who's going to listen to someone who says "I don't know, it's too hard to predict, it is too complicated"? He doesn't know what he's talking about! Get an expert in here to tell us what will happen! The more confident he sounds, the more right he must be.

I think it's exacerbated by social media, because there are so many opinionaters. You've got to proclaim things in bold, confident tones to get any hearing. A person who suggests we really don't know and can't predict ... well, he'll be buried by the noise of all the confident experts.

+1

What you have describe is a great example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

Or in layman's terms - People who are so stupid they don't know they are stupid.

The interesting thing is the smart people who actually know a lot are usually the ones who are most careful about insisting they know the truth. They know enough to know that there is much they don't know.
Few if any of these people work in the fields of journalism or politics, IMHO.

 

[Chuckanut]

Back the olden days, we used to say the definition of an expert was someone who didn't know any more than you did, but came from out of town and had color slides.

And got paid at least double what home town people were making.

 

[Chuckanut]

So what happened to Jim Lehrer's Rules of journalism?

https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1

1. Do nothing I cannot defend.*
2. Do not distort, lie, slant, or hype.
3. Do not falsify facts or make up quotes.
4. Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.*
5. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.*
6. Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.*
7. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.*
8. Assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
9. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story mandates otherwise.*
10. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label them as such.*
11. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.*
12. Do not broadcast profanity or the end result of violence unless it is an integral and necessary part of the story and/or crucial to understanding the story.
13. Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is.
14. Journalists who are reckless with facts and reputations should be disciplined by their employers.
15. My viewers have a right to know what principles guide my work and the process I use in their practice.
16. I am not in the entertainment business.*

 

[ls99]

Back the olden days, we used to say the definition of an expert was someone who didn't know any more than you did, but came from out of town and had color slides.

In public transit where I spent about 15 years, we used to call them seagulls.
Flew in made a lot of noise, crapped all over everything then flew away.

As for media reporting on events involving trains, my area, usually the fact that a train was involved was correct, the rest, see above for discussion on seagulls.

 

[Midpack]

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?

There’s a lot of truth in your analysis, but I think you’ve missed the real underlying cause. The collective us, viewers. We don’t “call them out and demand better” because our viewing habits have overwhelmingly reinforced oversimplification and deliberate bias. We just want the sound bites that support our views so we can pretend we’re knowledgeable. Calling them out won’t change anything anyway, tuning them out would - almost immediately. Most of us do just the opposite.

There are errors to be sure, but media slanting the truth to attract the audience is more common than ever. They know exactly what they’re doing, and they wouldn’t exist if we weren’t watching them in large numbers. Huge 24/7 networks have been built on reinforcing selective facts and deliberately omitting all other facts - thanks to the viewers who watch them, often exclusively. Being factually accurate isn’t nearly as important as being on [-]agenda[/-] message. If most viewers rejected the obviously slanted news sources, they’d have to change or go under. Quickly.

Most of us are in our silos, listening only to those who say what we want to hear. We don’t want to hear all the facts, just the ones that reinforce what we already believe. And when we don’t know what to think, we adopt the views our chosen talking heads give us, along with selective facts.

Add the fact that anyone with an internet connection can pretend to be a journalist today, and it’s harder than ever to find the truth buried in the garbage. Why does anyone read or believe anonymous internet posts, millions do it every day, and magnify the nonsense!

Same debate we have about crummy politicians. Voters have made them that way. We say one thing, and vote another. We collectively get what we collectively deserve in politicians, media, you name it...

 

[Midpack]

When was news not a for profit business first and foremost? I think this is a little rose-colored glasses rear-view mirror viewpoint.

It’s pretty well documented, well within our lifetimes, when networks news was not a network profit center. If you don’t like this source, just search for any of the other dozens of sources - though I won’t hold my breath.

https://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

...years ago, there was no network news “business.” The Big Three broadcast television networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—all covered news, but none generally made money doing so. Nor did they expect to turn a profit from news programming. They presented news programming for the prestige it would bring to their network, to satisfy the public-service requirements of …given the current economic climate, how best can journalists respond to these corporate, societal and technological changes and preserve the quality and integrity of news? Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, and more broadly so that they would be seen as good corporate citizens.

 

[ER Eddie]

+1

What you have describe is a great example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Or in layman's terms - People who are so stupid they don't know they are stupid.

The interesting thing is the smart people who actually know a lot are usually the ones who are most careful about insisting they know the truth. They know enough to know that there is much they don't know.
Few if any of these people work in the fields of journalism or politics, IMHO.

Oh yeah, good point. One corollary is that the less you know, the more you think you know. The less you know, the more confident you are in your opinion. It's not necessarily that the opinionator is arrogant (although that may be true, too). It's that his lack of knowledge is inflating his confidence.

Ideally, it wouldn't work that way, but that's how it works. It'd be funny if we weren't inundated with it constantly.

Well, it's still a little funny. And useful to remember!

 

[ER Eddie]

There are errors to be sure, but media slanting the truth to attract the audience is more common than ever. They know exactly what they’re doing, and they wouldn’t exist if we weren’t watching them in large numbers. Huge 24/7 networks have been built on reinforcing selective facts and deliberately omitting all other facts - thanks to the viewers who watch them, often exclusively. Being factually accurate isn’t nearly as important as being on [-]agenda[/-] message. If most viewers rejected the obviously slanted news sources, they’d have to change or go under. Quickly.

Most of us are in our silos, listening only to those who say what we want to hear. We don’t want to hear all the facts, just the ones that reinforce what we already believe. And when we don’t know what to think, we adopt the views our chosen talking heads give us, along with selective facts.

I'll just add that this has been exacerbated by the algorithms built into social media, which result in people being fed more of what they already believe. That is what keeps people engaged, so that's what gets rewarded.

I don't think the social media conglomerates consciously intended to create polarized echo chambers, but that's what has happened. That's how the algorithms work, and that's what they reinforce.

I'm talking here about Google, Youtube, twitter, Facebook, etc., not about "normal" TV. I don't watch that anymore, so I'm not really in touch. Maybe it's as polarized as social media is, I don't know. The news clips I see on Youtube suggest it is.

The journalists exploit this, both consciously and unconsciously (they are manipulated, too). And if they can inject their stories with hyperbole and primitive emotions (fear and anger), all the better.

 

[Winemaker]

If you think this is just a new problem, it isn't. If you get a chance one evening, watch "His Girl Friday", a funny romance drama starring Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. It shows how the press was thought of in January 1940, when it was released.

 

[Bigdawg]

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.

+1.

 

[ERD50]

It’s pretty well documented, well within our lifetimes, when networks news was not a network profit center. If you don’t like this source, just search for any of the other dozens of sources - though I won’t hold my breath.

https://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

So I read the report, interesting, thanks. Now, was that snarky "though I won’t hold my breath" comment needed? Would Ms Hirshfield approve?

OK, so there was a period of time when TV networks decided that the news would provide a service, and the shows would carry the weight, the news itself was not 'for profit'.

But throughout history, journalism/news has been for-profit, and much of it is a sensationalized mess. The advent of 24/7 cable networks and social media has probably brought it to the forefront. But that doesn't change history.

Thinking back to the 60's, I recall that my more (politically) liberal Aunts/Uncles subscribed to the Chicago Sun Times, and the more conservative ones, The Chicago Tribune. Even back then, those papers were "promoting an agenda and pandering to a like minded audience.".

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/american-civil-war/war-journalism-american-civil-war.html

History:

New Opportunities

Those working at the beginning of the Civil War saw an opportunity and took it, regardless of how grim it was. At the time, newspapers were heavily biased, and writers’ pay was not good. The best way to succeed in the world of reporting was, as it is now, to produce the most sensational story and sell the most copies.
...

The reporting standards of today did not apply then. Many reporters courted their favorite sources and would write whatever they wanted about anyone. There was no regard for whether or not their story was true, or whether or not it shed an individual in a particularly good or bad light.

-ERD50

 

[ls99]

A ways back when old Walter Cronkite (I called him old carnkcase) after he read the news and announced: that's the way it is, the real meaning was, according to me.

Then, as now much was hidden by the media.

 

[HadEnuff]

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!

If I could apologize to all of the people I feel I may have not given my best:
it would take a long time, and

Most of them would look at me like "Really? I don't remember that."
We are human. We don't always hit the mark vis-a-vis our best possible version of ourselves.