| And that's another thing (if you'll let a "foreigner" step in here for a moment). Gzent nailed a large portion of the "problem" with perceptions of the war when he mentioned "big news outlets".
Today I hear on the radio that "someone" fired into a group of Iraqi children killing four. Quote: "some have CLAIMED that this was done by US soldiers". Unquote (I put in the Caps). Now notice that they did NOT say that "the shooting could have been done by anyone", or "some others claimed that they saw Iraqis or insurgents doing the shooting". The point is that NO PROOF HAS BEEN PERSENTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER and yet the media chooses to select the more odious of many different possible explanations and put a teaser onto the story.
I've long been critical of the media: they are the first to take the side of the political party in opposition, the words used are invariably slanted to be "negative" towards the ruling party, reports on social events are generally done without obtaining proofs or backing up the stories, quotes are printed and then attributed to unreliable witnesses OR ANYONE WHO WILL EVEN SPEAK TO THE REPORTER whether that person knows first hand or not.
I remember taking a short journalism section in one of my high school Language classes. They stressed "ALWAYS REPORT THE FACTS" and leave editorializing to the editors.
Unfortunately this lesson seems to have ben lost in today's media rush for sensationalism.
Let's settle down and get the WHOLE story and THEN decide what was right and what was wrong. |