It has been some time since I put any trust in the regular media.
Everyone has heard about issues with reporters. We all say the quality of news is no where near what it should be. Still people watch the news, read the paper, and continue in delusions.
Yes. I say delusions.
Let me take you back to my own real life experience. This was my last straw in the news as it is these days.
Long ago there was Senator Packwood, and his assorted problems.
Packwood was giving evidence to the court. When he was doing so, he wanted to give just a few pages of a dairy up as evidence. The court refused this.
The TV news had an expert on, a lawyer who was knowledgeable in evidentury procedures. This man explained that Packwood could choose to submit the diary, or not. He further iterated that all of us have the right not to testify in a case against us, but that if we submit a document, we have to submit the whole document, and not just parts of it. The only argument the lawyer felt Packwood had was that he might be able to submit the single volume of the dairy, and not all the books, since it was a multi-volume set.
This was all presented in an easy to understand way. The news station broadcasting to a good chunk of Southern California had now explained why Packwood's diary was an issue, and how Packwood was trying to get special privileges.
At the very end of the broadcast, the editor of the news program got on and made his daily editorial comment. In this he blasted the judge for forcing Packwood to testify. He stated that Packwood should have the same rights as all of us and be able to submit whatever he wanted in his defense.
In other words, the editor just contradicted the expert on his own program.
Did the editor fail to watch his own news show? I hope not.
Was the editor a supporter of Packwood? Probably to some extent.
Now think about the timing. The end of the show, which the largest number of people will see since some would have tuned in late and missed the earlier interview.
Add to this the conversational interview vs. the camera in the face, obviously passionate statement by the editor. The visual impact was clearly slanted to favor the editor.
Results?
People thought Packwood was being ramrodded. People in my area who also saw this editorial were influenced by it, and thought that Packwood was being cheated, and not afforded the same rights as everyone else.
That editor had a drastic impact on people I knew. He fostered a lie, perhaps not intentionally, but still a lie.
The views of editors, and not facts, are constantly presented.
This is one example, and I have seen many more.
A blurb has more weight than a ten page explanation, and can be completely wrong!
Watch command-N #4, http://commandn.typepad.com/, where Mike Lazazzera talks about a TV show he loves. He states quite clearly that the show and the RSS feed for the show contradict each other! More editorial tweaking to get across a particular point of view, effect, and so on.
Get news from outer countries. If you only comprehend English you may be somewhat limited in this, but there are still several very good news sources to contrast to our own.
If you feel the news lies to you, and many do, why accept it? There are a vast number of other sources you can use to balance the view. Many of these are twisted in other ways, but at least in containing contrary views you can use them as a source of stimulation.
Go to the web site for a company that is being subjected to the poisoned pen, or tainted video. See what they have to say. Many times explanations and replies to news reports are in there, and never reported on.
Get thinking about things. Question. Refuse to accept the statements of our slanted news at face value.
Don't take my word on this. Try it.
Konrad
