I personally read the Times for about two hours every morning before turning to the web, where I read portions of the Washington Post, The Economist and Haaretz which are delivered to me free of charge by e-mail. In addition I get countless liberal solicitations to contribute money, sign petitions and send e-mails to my members of Congress. Misstatements are not uncommon in all of these communications, and being retired, I search for truth through Google, though if care is not taken that too can lead to erroneous facts, particularly since Right Wing blogs seem to get priority on what is supposed to be an unbiased search engine. I am not suggesting that Google has a deliberate bias, but rather that for whatever reason, those are the results. But one should be particularly wary about facts that fit ones predilections. Just because they fit our political philosophy, doesn’t mean they are true.
But the New York Times, which is the standard by which all others are supposed to be measured, most frequently draws my ire. And now I am not talking about its columns, or its editorials, but its news articles, and what drew my ire today was one that appeared on the Front page of the Times on October 7, 2011 with the headline: “Some Unemployed Find Fault in Extension of Jobless Benefits." This the Times considers to be such startling news that it makes page one with a colored photograph, no less. Now there are 14 million unemployed in the US and the Times found one person who doesn’t think unemployment insurance should be extended. That is news? And Front Page News at that? Now if they had found a majority feeling that way, that would be news! 10% might be news! But one?
In fairness to the article it goes on to discuss some of the ramifications of unemployment insurance and Republican position on the question. But is that an appropriate lead–in? Or does that sound more like the New York Post or Fox?
Aside of how this reflects on the Times it should send a warning to all as to how a paper, any paper should be read. A headline is frequently misleading! The reporter who writes the article does not write the headline, and so the headline may or may not reflect what the reporter intended the article to convey. It is often misleading!
Many articles in any newspaper try to be balanced, but one view may be in the first part of the article, and the opposite view in the latter part. If you don’t read the continuation, you are likely to get only one view, rather than a balanced one.
Beware of quotes from unnamed sources, something that the Times, and other media indulge in more and more frequently. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for it, but often the source is unreliable or does not exist. Even where the source is named be skeptical. Remember, how Chalabi was quoted as the authority on all things Iraqi. All wrong!!!
As for unnamed, or even named sources without a pedigree, should be suspect. I remember a time when I became an expert on EZ Pass for the Newark Star Ledger. I had written a Letter to the Editor on this subject and for a long time thereafter, whenever the reporter covering that subject wanted a quote from someone, anyone, he would phone me and ask my opinion. The article would appear as “Emil Scheller a resident of Montclair, NJ expressed the view, “…” Should anyone have cared what that view was?
The New York Times is assumed to be a liberal paper and so when they print a front page article critical of the Obama Administration one tends to give it credence. But it “aint necessarily so”! One article, in November of 2010, so outraged me so much that I made it a point to save it. The headline read “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales," which it seemed to me to be a pretty hypocritical position for the Administration to take, and I read it with deep misgivings. Guess what? Every single instance cited in the article in support of the headline was one that occurred in the Bush Administration. I wouldn’t have known that if I had read the article only in the print edition, but I was sufficiently bothered by the allegations in the article to go to the web edition, where I could, by the magic of links, find the underlying facts. Every instance cited, but one, was years old and under the Bush Administration.
Now I have two major problems with this. Why was the Times printing old, years old, news as though it was current news? Was the reporter busy with other things and told to write an article by a short deadline, dug out an old article that had never been printed, up-dated it with one recent example, and he had earned his salary. Did any editor check the citations as I did?
I took the time to write to the author of the article as follows:
I just finished reading your article in the Times of today and am deeply disturbed at its misleading character. Almost everything in the article is old and no longer newsworthy. Most of the material dates back to the Bush Administration and one of the few items from the Obama Administration, dated July 15, 2010 reads, “The NDC commends the 2010 DGAC’s science‐based conclusions that include increasing consumption of nutrient‐dense foods, including low‐fat and fat‐free milk and milk products, decreasing consumption of solid fats and added sugars, and increasing regular physical activity to improve the health of Americans. Higher dairy food consumption is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, poor bone health and related diseases. Because Americans are consuming only 60% of the recommended amounts of milk and milk products, research supports the committee’s conclusion that efforts are warranted to promote consumption of three servings of low fat and fat free milk and milk products for individuals ages 9 years and older." (Emphasis added).
For the documents cited in the article see here and for the only document issued by the Obama Administration see here.
I never received a reply. I guess I should have written to the Editor, or the Public Editor, but I doubt if it would have made a difference.
Until we the public demand something better and are satisfied with titillation, sensationalism, and superficiality, we will get what we deserve.
What we are most interested in is the Knox murder trial (Foxy Knoxy) – sex and murder- its much more fun, or the Casey Anthony murder trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, but in the end we get from our media and from our government what we deserve.
In the end – WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY ARE US!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment