Skip to: Site menu | Main content

Bias?

2007-07-19

Good morning Boys and Girls.

I was thinking about a blog post I read the other day where someone complained about the bias of the media coverage of the war. Oh hell, it was Ruined. He won't mind if I name him.

It was the usual. Only bad things are reported. Successes are ignored. It's BIAS he claimed, and he's certainly not alone in believing this to be the case.

He then complained about the media coverage of his own employer's company's demise and how it was skewed, inaccurate, and by inference, that it was incomplete.

It's at least a two-fold deal and really, it's probably more like twenty-seven-fold, but here's the problem in a nutshell, and, since he's a friend, I'll use Ruined's blog to illustrate this as well.

When have we heard about peaceful days in his neighborhood? -Days where his neighbors have had no interaction whatsoever with him and his family? Oh there have been mentions of peaceful times in general that he's thankful for, but those reports are interesting only because we KNOW of the problems he's suffered on a fairly regular basis with these people, and when something bad and NEW happens, he tells us what he's experienced. THAT'S news.

Does he go out and ask his neighbors for their side of the story? No. Frankly, that would be an unreasonable expectation, and what he's writing about is how what's happened has affected him, and or his loved ones.

Well, in some respects, that's how the news works. An explosion? -That's a fact. Easy to report on. But what of something like this? "We think this particular neighborhood is cleared of the enemy." Okay. Good. But are they gone or did they just move elsewhere? If you report that things are peaceful in a place today that wasn't peaceful yesterday, that's all well and good, but if there's new violence elsewhere, THAT'S the story that will get the coverage. And frankly, that the story that SHOULD get the coverage.

Reporting FACTS is not biased.

Yesterday there was that steam explosion in NYC.

That was news.

I'll bet that in an office nearby there business went on as usual, with deals getting done, and word-processing happening and lunches being enjoyed. And know what? The media ignored that stuff completely.

That's not bias.

Mistakes are made. Hell, I'd heard that one person was killed in the blast early on, but this morning, I heard that the lady who died, died of a heart attack.

Bias? Bad reporting? Or simply an early report that didn't contain every fact that was eventually gleaned?

Remember, we don't hear about prisoners who are treated well in the prisons over there in Iraq. We only hear about bad situations that occur - which we hope happens only infrequently. Bias?

Nope. Things that are as they should be, or as they USUALLY are, is simply not news.

Das life.



Be good to everyone.

Link to This | Back to top

Barnabus (2007-07-19)
They have shown none of the good things that have happened in Iraq, new hospitals built by US, new roads, new schools! new medical facilities!! nop...just the killing!!

Bishop\'s Fantasy? (2007-07-19)
I get what you're saying here, but then there's a question that begs answering. Does that mean that only negative events should be considered newsworthy? There are soldiers who exploit the people they're supposed to be helping. That's news - as it should be. On the flip side, there are soldiers who go out of their way to try to change the negative stereotypes of Americans in general and soldiers in particular. Isn't that worth reporting?

[ Back to top ]

Created with ShoutPost