FeedIt’s only natural to mistrust Koppel
April 30, 2004 in Watchdog
Ted Koppel addresses the skepticism and hostility
his plan tonight to read the names of every soldier slain in Iraq.
/I don’t want it to make a political statement. Quite the contrary.
My position on this is I truly believe that people will take away
from this program the reflection of what they bring to it.
I think it is just as possible for a staunch supporter of the war to
come away from this program very moved and content that it was done
as it is for someone who is an opponent of the war to come with
exactly the same feeling./
Please understand that I take Ted at his word and that he intends this
only to be a tribute to fallen heroes.
But a lot of people ain’t buying it. You can’t blame ‘em.
They see news reports on the war in Iraq that do not describe military
victories only in terms of how many soldiers were slain. They flock to
soldiers private Websites to learn details about their missions that are
under reported.
It is almost as if a meeting was held, and a decision was made that the
only story worth covering out of Iraq was the “growing” death toll for
American soldiers. I guarantee that more of the enemy has died than have
American and coalition soldiers.
The media constantly damages its own credibility.
On ABC, they are running a Barbara Walter’s special that is being
promoted as a contest between families to “win” the right to adopt a baby.
Time and again, Dan Rather announces upcoming segment in terms of what
the government is or isn’t doing to prevent some bad thing from
happening somewhere.
Please, please, please let this controversy serve as a wake-up call.
People do not trust the national media. They don’t trust it because the
news programs have stopped being /objective./ Time and time again, I
read interviews with television news executives and journalists who say
that the time limits of the medium make it impossible to perform
straight, objective journalism, and that their job is instead to provide
“context” to the news.
When reporters provide “context,” what often comes out is that reporters
own biases. When I think of provieding context, I think about providing
additional reporting that trends to prove or disprove what I am being
told by the newsmaker. I also know I must be objective and seek out
information that would tend to do both.
But if a reporter has an agenda, that’s not what happens.
People also need to remember that “media” is a big word. It applies to
the evening news, talk shows, sit coms and movies, books and magazines.
Most Americans are able see the difference between a situation comedy
and the evening news. But they don’t see much distinction between the
evening news and, say, Oprah. Whether or not one likes the Oprah show,
no one would confuse it with objective journalism.
That’s should make journalists more sensitive to the need for more
objectivity. Unfortunately, the stylish position in journalism schools
these days that that because pure and perfect objectivity is impossible
to achieve, no one should bother. As long as the reporter states his or
her own biases up front, what’s the harm?
Here is a reason: Do it so people will trust what you have to say.
Feh. How is one supposed to come up with an honest opinion on anything
without a source of information that makes its goal the spread of
accurate and complete information, regardless of what side of the debate
that information tends to support?
