Last week's blog brought a comment I appreciated, so I decided to answer it in this week's blog so everyone could enjoy the conversation. The person did not leave a name, but the comment regarded the credibility of reporters in the past, specifically pointing out that even Walter Cronkite did not always avoid inserting his opinion or bias. I felt that the person's comment deserved a reply.
Probably the classic situation of Walter Cronkite expressing a personal opinion occurred not on the Evening News but rather on a special report on Vietnam that he hosted after visiting the war zone. He specifically said, "I think if we examine this carefully, we have to see that there's a stalemate in Vietnam. We're not going to win and the best thing we can do is get out." No question that he did express an opinion, although not on the Evening News in that case.
The rules for reporters differed in the past. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine was introduced, requiring those who held a broadcast license to present controversial issues of importance with both sides. Some of you will remember the dueling talking heads on television.
However, in 2011 the FCC abandoned that doctrine. Here's the problem: The First Amendment says, "...Congress shall make no law respecting...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... There are some exceptions, the most common example being that you do not have the 'freedom' to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. However, for the government to moderate the news easily, there is a risk of violating the intention of the First Amendment. It has been decided that it is better to rely on ethical standards established by journalism associations and individual news organizations, as well as the ethics of journalists themselves, than for the government to impose rules. These basic objectives of responsible news sources include truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. Unfortunately, not all reporters abide by those objectives today.
Newspapers that were once the primary source of news in America are dying. Today television and the internet are the primary sources for news. Too many of us choose news sources that report what we want to hear rather that what we need to know. Last week's blog offered some ways to search for accuracy, and in case you missed reading that you might want to scroll back to it.
There are examples of even reputable reporters and evening news hosts getting it wrong. Some of you may remember in 2004 when Dan Rather reported that George W. Bush had received preferential treatment getting into the Air National Guard to avoid the draft, relying on what turned out to be a questionable source. CBS fired executives for that, and Dan Rather ultimately stepped down. In 2015 Brian Williams got in trouble when he stated on another evening show that he had been in a helicopter in Vietnam that was hit by a missile. In fact, it was the helicopter ahead of him that was hit, but even so, being that close was probably frightening. Williams blamed his memory of the event 12 years ago for having caused his mistake, but nevertheless NBC put him on leave for 6 months and he was replaced by another evening news host, even though the misstatement had not been made during his news broadcast.
I personally liked both of those newscasters, but Bravo to the networks for adhering to strict standards of accuracy.
Sadly, today preposterous misrepresentations and outright lies are reported with no repercussions. If the freedoms we Americans enjoy are to continue, we must do our part. With freedom comes responsibility. Of course, those people getting rich from ownership of news sources should respect the importance of accurate reporting, but if they don't--and too many don't--it is up to us. Learn to fact check and sample more than a single source if you want to be sure of what you read and what you hear. If you feel a news source is not honoring "truthfulness accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability, perhaps you should consider finding other news sources. It really is up to all of us, for if we stop tuning in, news sources will take notice.
1 comment:
Some news sources are not news at all but simply editorials. Some I abandon, even block, others I take with a grain of salt and see which other news sources confirm it and how they go about it. News should be fact checked prior to presenting as the networks used to do but today things move so fast that by the time it is honestly fact checked, four other sites have reported it and the world has moved on. So we are subject to the proverbial "firehose".
Post a Comment