The Press is frequently criticized, as we all know, for interpreting the news it reports. Having had a few newsworthy cases over the years, I have to say that I've found that they are often inaccurate, often innocently, and sometimes because the reporter has a view he's focusing on.
This past week, however, I've seen two items that really show why the press lines up for criticism in this area. One story was local, and the other international. It's been interesting.
The local story involved an accusation of a minor assault following a city council meeting. I'm not going to get too far into it, as I don't know what happened, but it basically seems to have involved a contact with some papers. As assault is defined as rude and threatening contact, basically, a very minor assault is fairly easy to have happen. It doesn't mean you got hit or anything.
Anyhow, whatever happened, the Tribune reported that the assailant was a local religious figure, or words to that effect. That's quite the news. The on line Oil City News, which has a much different spin on this incident (and which frankly right now seems more accurate on it) said no such thing. When the name was reported, I looked the guy up.
Shoot, he's on the board of directors for his synagogue. That doesn't make him a religious figure at all. The Tribune is reporting this like he's a minister. Boo hiss Tribune, that doesn't seem supported at all. He's not the rabbi. Heck, I'm on the Parish Council for my church, and that doesn't make me a Priest or Deacon.
Frankly, were I Jewish, who seem to be the most picked on people on earth, I'd be super offended.
The second story was an article, perhaps an op ed, by the New York Times claiming that following this election we have a divided United Kingdom.
Oh really NYT? Maybe what we have is the Conservative party gaining and Labour collapsing. Sure, the Scots Separatist gained seats, but this isn't new. What it really looks like is a massive validation of the middle right path of the Conservatives, something a seemingly increasingly left wing NYT probably doesn't like.
The Press is long on its concept that it's a protector of the public. If it is, it ought to be a bit more careful on occasion to not appear to be partisan.
2 comments:
I happened to be there when a local newspaper reporter talked to my grandmother after the tornado hit her house.
It was a pretty simple story that she had been in the hallway next the bathroom when it hit her house, she had lost her cat (Pumpkin was its name) when it hid under the bed and she couldn't get to it in time, and her car was totaled so she would have to buy a new car.
When the story came out in the paper, it turned out that she had sought shelter in the bathroom, the cat had been ripped out of her arms by the wind, and her son was going to buy her a brand-new car to replace her totaled one. They even got the name of the cat wrong.
Everyone thought it was funny that the printed story was so far from the truth, but I watched that reporter write down all the details of the story and couldn't see how she could have gotten it so wrong. How far off from the truth would a more complicated story have ended up in the paper?
It made me start to question the validity of most stories I read or heard on the news. A reporter with a bias or agenda would be even more likely to get the true story wrong.
That's an absolute classic!
Post a Comment