Too many people working in the reporting field fall for hoaxes. They rush to judgment and do real damage. Should they be required to apologize for their unprofessional behavior?
“There's been much commentary in the past few days about the MSM's lack of critical thinking skills in covering not only the Jussie Smollett "hate crime" fairy tale, but a number of other bogus stories as well.”
https://pjmedia.com/trending/why-does-t … us-hoaxes/
Reporters don't stand on a street corner waiting for someone to assault Smollet. They report what the police tell them, and that's exactly what happened here.
Then again, there are quite a few hoaxes including the alleged election fraud by Democrats.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … liticsNews
I agree, but as someone who is a reporter should also try to find witnesses to speak with as well as Smollet himself and research the history of hate crimes in the area. If they have sources inside the police department they should also speak with them. Then, they should monitor it for any developments and report them. If they want to do their job.
I get your point. That's assuming there were witnesses, the reporters could find them, they were willing to talk, the witnesses knew the attack was staged, etc.
Any police who bypass their bosses or public information officers to speak on the record with reporters risk getting fired. That's why they don't do it unless the conversation is off the record and they get a promise of anonymity.
"Any police who bypass their bosses or public information officers to speak on the record with reporters risk getting fired."
I don't know what your experiences was as a reporter, but when I worked for newspapers, this happened all the time. I was given direction and information "off the record" all the time from police, politicians, etc. I had a rolodex (shows you just how long ago this was) of contacts. I don't think its changed all that much.
You told me before you worked in the circulation department.
If reporters don't get their crime information from police, from where do they get it?
Ah, no, always worked as a writer/reporter.
Exactly, point is police and many others will provide information on a story "off the record" so they don't get fired. Getting information from the designated public affairs rep. is just a start.
Newspaper reporters don't refer to themselves as writers. When and where did you work as a newspaper reporter?
Edit: Actually, I get it now. Based on your LinkedIn profile and other sources, you have written freelance articles and a humor column.
That said, you did previously tell me you worked in several circulation departments.
Why? Because it keeps the feed pouring in. And just consider when they release a fake story only a few see the retraction, and the rest just go on their merry way eating up the tasty feed and sharing it...
They aren't falling for hoaxes. They are jumping on any story that fits their politics and running with it until proven wrong.
It's like the Sandmann kid. His lawyer said it took less than a fifteen minute Google search to see the full video. Almost immediately after the incident.
If it fits your bias. Run it. If it doesn't,edit it to fit your bias then run it. Facts are not important to the news mediaof today.
Where is the politics by the reporter in this typical story about the alleged assault?
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/jussie … 203122135/
I didn't have time to check your link before and, since it's a celebrity rag, I didn't think it was worth it.
Looking at it, that article is after the facts began unfolding. Once the truth is clear, it isn't as easy to push a lie. Politics have to give way to reality.
I'm not making a statement on Variety. As I stated, I don't read it or click on anything online it puts out.
I grabbed it randomly. Variety follows strict journalism rules.
Instead, let's try the city where the alleged assault took place. The Chicago Tribune is a highly conservative newspaper.
Here is the original story. I see police quotes, quotes from other sources, no spin, slant or opinion by the reporter.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertai … story.html
A highly conservative paper? There you go. Even if they didn't live up to the standards you say they do I'd think a conservative paper would put forth much more effort for accuracy on such a topic. Just as a liberal paper would on a story that appeared to put their views in a poor light.
And, honestly, to be fair, all news outlets jump to be the first to report and do not wait for all the facts, although they should wait some semblance of truth. The Smollet story is a bit of a one off because it was so obvious from the outset it had a high probability of being a hoax.
I think the thing that I find most irritating is the left focuses on a hat, attempting to paint everyone with that hat as racist homophobic cretins. Makes you wonder if hat manufacturers may be pushing an agenda since their sales suffered some. It's so ignorant it amazes me that we have to listen to the bull. I don't own one and don't know anyone who has one but it's just a hat.
Here I go? The Tribune has endorsed a Republican candidate for President for more than 100 years with only one exception: their hometown candidate, Barrack Obama.
I have a few other questions:
They don't wait for the facts? Doesn't the above story have information straight from the police?
Obvious it was a hoax? Where do any original stories have quotes from the police saying the attack was probably a hoax? What did you know that the police didn't know?
Why another generalization about "the left"?
What do you do for a living?
If you didn't raise an eyebrow at the ridiculous number of classic hate crime elements, then i can't possibly continue in this discussion. You may just want to be hoodwinked.
I don't jump to conclusions about a police investigation before it is complete. I don't have a crystal ball from 1,000 miles away, and neither do you.
It would be like me insisting that Trump is guilty of collusion, money laundering and obstruction of justice before the Mueller report came out.
I didn't jump to a conclusion about a police investigation. No matter how fishy it sounded it needed to be investigated. And, I'm a firm supporter in the Mueller investigation completing. I don't think the outcome will satisfy anyone, though.
You know, with Smollet, I think some form of therapy would be helpful.
Yes...and no-ish. They surely are not falling for them. Wanting so much for them to be true (for the reasons you stated) they are far more interested in the effect they can have on people/society by using such claims than truth about them and the people who make them.
The no-ish part is that because of this fiasco they will be more crafty and listeners will definitely have to read between the lines, so to speak. They are trying to come across as appreciative of their listeners, but the cunning methods used in their biased reporting is growing, and is something to keep both eyes on.
Currently, one method is to try to pull themselves off as victims of this hoax. Peeling back the layers of media deceitfulness requires that we pay careful attention.
They react to everything too quickly. What about the spread of the fake cancer cure? The media is just looking for PR and the public gives it to them. The first news channel to get to a story gets most of the PR, so there's no time to dig in and verify anything. The media is not to blame, it's the product of what the people are looking for.
Should the media not report what police tell them?
I was pointing out that this is nothing special. It's being made out that this went out of bounds just because it's a hate crime. The news also spread false information about the fake cancer cure.
The media must report what the police tell them. The media when they spread information that is not from credible sources (police are a credible source) must conduct some research of their own.
What prominent mainstream media do you know that doesn't get information from credible sources?
The fact is, they must in order to avoid getting sued.
Newspapers like the Washington Post and National Enquirer don't follow the same practices. Only one of them is about to be sued out of existence.
Here: http://healthfeedback.org/who-repeated- … alem-post/
Let me know when they are sued.
Consider the following points about the original Jerusalem Post article, which is here:
1. The headline says: A CURE FOR CANCER? ISRAELI SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE FOUND ONE. The newspaper does not say the cure was actually found.
2. The first paragraph says, "A small team of Israeli scientists think they might have found the first complete cure for cancer." The newspaper used the word "might" and attributed the claim to people making the claim.
3. The third paragraph begins with, "“We believe we will offer in a year’s time a complete cure for cancer,” said Dan Aridor." Again, the newspaper is quoting someone and not making a claim on its own.
I understand your point about news media distributing articles that have information eventually proven to be false.
That said, a credible newspaper can only report what it is told and repeats what it is told with quotes and attributions. It does not have cancer specialists on staff who can tell readers if the sources of the information are right or wrong.
Yes, a credible news media can only report what it is told and that is what it should do. But, the same newspaper must point out with a front-page headline (or a similar position as the original post) any correction when something is found to be false or misleading. Deccan Herald a newspaper I used to read back in India always did this. They pointed it out.
But today, most newspapers and media outlets will only point it out if it gets them some sort of PR boost. The thing with Jussie will make headlines again because it's something the public like to see in their news feed. People in general love gossip, apparently.
Most news outlets are not going to post any correction to their statement just because it's the right thing to do or because they have a moral duty to do so.
This is something that needs to be changed and maybe even put into law. If they can be sued for false information, they should be sued for failure to post any corrections to past articles once new knowledge is acquired.
In a lot of news stories I have issue with "Unnamed sources" as well as "those close to the investigation," my other favorite "a member of the police force who did not want to be named."
I also know this is done by all media on the left and right. It's also been done for decades of news reporting.
When I see this, the story instantly has my BS meter going.
News media does not have to report what the police tell them. Because this statement is true the police have to be very careful with their statements. The news media will use/twist/misrepresent them as fast as they will anyone else. Not reporting police reports accurately is just one reason people are trusting news media less and less.
Please give us an example where major news media twisted an important story.
Feel free to include links and facts from credible sources proving the news media was wrong.
Have you already forgotten about Sandmann?
Have you already forgotten our exchange about Smollett? I never did see any proof of major news media twisting that one, even though I had links to actual coverage.
Regarding Sandmann, in what way did major news media twist the story other than showing photos and videos?
I'll make it easy on you. Here's the video coverage from the Washington Post. In what way did the evil liberal Post abuse poor Mr. Sandmann?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/na … d18bc405ac
The animosity continues.
Lol. I watched the news on this. For days. Those reporting showed a highly edited clip specifically designed to leave everything out leading up to the moment the two were nose to nose. And then painting it racist on a young boy's part. It is apparently now racist (by the news standards) for a white kid to wait for a school bus; until after he receives death threats and fights to get the truth told.
I honestly cannot continue this discussion. Your bias is incredibly unbelievable. I harbor no animosity. I simply want to see truth and balance.
You refuse to reply to any of my linked examples asking you to prove your biased and hostile allegations.
It's obvious why you can't continue the discussion.
To the biased mind, everything is explainable, nothing is wrong.
I tell you this. Allowing a lack of honesty in our news media will eventually bite you in the butt.
I thought you couldn't continue this conversation, but I guess not.
Likewise, to the biased mind, everything is rationalized, everything is wrong.
That's why extremists make sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about the entire "news media".
They do it without backing up their claims or responding to linked evidence disproving them.
I've been down this road many times. She likes to make allegations but rarely (I actually think it's "never," but I'm being careful so as not to be inadvertently wrong) backs them up with proof or examples, even when asked.
Interesting, I always was of the assumption that a reporters job was to report? So reporting what the police tells them is right up their alley...?
Not any more. Now it is to say things that will attract readers...and the advertisers that pay the bills. It must be technically true, but there are literally thousands of ways to convince a gullible public that a falsehood is true, from a single word left out to body language to telling only half the story. The last, in particular, is a favorite.
I was referring to this statement by Rtalloni: "News media does not have to report what the police tell them"
I understand PR is everything for them today. Even on stuff that's important and without fluff they manage to create some weird clickbait titles.
Thought I'd add this link.
https://pluralist.com/hate-crimes-jussi … o-twitter/
Don't be naive and think there is no agenda. Report a hate crime. Blame Trump. Blame Trump supporters.
It can pan out to be fake. But, you've planted the seed. Repeat. Watch it grow.
Those who perpetrate these hoaxes are the true racists. Those who buy into them without reservation are the true racists. They want us divided in any way they can accomplish it.
So, fake news and unresearched pieces becoming mainstream is something that's only begun after Trump decided to run for President?
No. Although,again, if it fits your bias, run with it.
It's more tied to what gets more clicks online, social media mania, etc.
You can certainly blame Trump all day long but by doing so you ignore the problem until Trump leaves office. Then you blame it on the right. Then, it'll probably be too late for the country to overcome the lynch mob attitude.
I did not say it was only after him... I was asking you a question because your previous response seemed like it was something that was happening to undermine Trump.
The lynch mob attitude is hard to prevent when people are uneducated and make decisions based on news pieces that are unresearched and just click bait. It was, therefore, a lot better on society (in this aspect) when people were both uneducated and illiterate than literate but uneducated.
Like Pizzagate? That kind of fake news? Or reporting that Sandy Hook was a hoax - that kind of fake news?
Great examples of so-called "news media" reporting like Breitbart, Alex Jones, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the National Enquirer.
Notice that kind of fake news is very different from the Smollett story. Intelligent people need to differentiate these kinds of things. The Smollett story is straight reporting. Somebody reports a crime. The police corroborate. The news media reports it. The two examples I cited are just made up.
And to use the Smollett story as a reason to disavow all hate crimes is just shameful. They occur all the time. How many times a day is the n-word yelled at black people by white people? And to be fair, how much black-on-white crime is there daily? If the media actually reported on every one of those your average newspaper would consist only of those stories.
Both right and left should be disgusted at Smollett. He used a political hot potato for his own personal gain. I'm revolted by him. Didn't think about how much damage he would cause, just about his salary? Just absolutely disgusting and idiotic. That said, I've met a lot of actors. They're not too smart as a lot, overall.
What's funny about this story is that Smollett also proved he isn't a good actor.
I agree with your entire post except for the part about the intelligence of actors, only because I don't know any.
I've interviewed everyone from Steve Martin to Jamie Lee Curtis to Dolly Parton. You know what actors know how to do? Act. Most of the time, they're not that educated, but they know how to act educated. This is why, when it comes to anything not acting, we should not listen to actors (like with regard to politics).
That said, some actors are very smart. Ben Affleck comes to mind. Steve Martin. Some are just nice, logical people. Some are always playing a role.
When most people meet famous people, they're blinded by their fame and have a hard time seeing who the people really are because, usually, the famous people are trying to keep that hidden by pretending to be their famous selves. When I met Steve Martin, he was very quiet and serious.
You guys forgot "Seth Rich and the Clintons body count"
I didn't forget Hillary Clinton because I'm certain she has murdered many people including the 4 at Benghazi.
I read it on a Facebook page managed by the Russian GRU intelligence service. So it must be true.
The other thing that is going on here is, with typical right-wing paranoia, the discounting of the entire "mainstream" media based on an isolated incident. This story provides every right-winger with the "proof" to discount any story that comes out of the "mainstream" media without even considering it. "Fake News!" - remember the Smollett story? The "mainstream" media can't be trusted!
One more instance where supporters of President Donald Trump are falsely accused of racism.
Should they be forced to apologize?
Are supporters of President Donald Trump victims of the lies and hatred of the ignorant left?
“Muslim college student who lied about Trump supporter subway attack pleads guilty”
The Muslim college student who lied to cops about getting attacked on the subway by drunken Trump supporters took a plea deal on Friday.
Yasmin Seweid, 19, copped to falsely reporting an incident and disorderly conduct for the bogus claim.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/te … WlFqD42mPc
Here is another bit of fake news about guns.
An Alabama professor claimed the United States had the most mass shootings of any country in the world.
When people started trying to validate such a claim, his story didn't look good. That didn't stop the mainstream media from publishing his falsehood as fact.
This is interesting to watch.
Smollett Is Charged With Giving False Police Report
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chicago-po … 1550703632
What is your basis for thinking that Christine Ford lied? Because I can show you a couple times where Brett Kavanaugh lied to Congress. Are you outraged by that?
"I don't drink heavily."
"He raped me."
Which lie is more damaging? Which lie is subjective?
I applaud thinking. It's a good thing.
What was Kavanaugh's motive for lying? To be a Supreme Court judge, right?
What was Ford's reason for lying? So she could be hounded and ridiculed by the media?
Who has more motivation to lie?
Oh, and Kavanaugh did lie to Congress. Boofing? Devil's Triangle? His answers were total BS.
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Could not have happened to a more deserving crowd...I hope all of them are held accountable for all that they have done in harming our Republic...
by Skarlet 9 years ago
Why does the mainstream media continue to attack Mitt Romney?Now that we know Mitt Romney has paid MORE than his fair share of taxes and donated millions to charities, why do people keep demonizing him? Obama came out after four Americans were murdered and said, "well, we've had a bad...
by ahorseback 5 years ago
Not the sensationalizing "face -book " mentality of todays mainstream news media . Once , there was a time when selling the headline was the profiteering, business method of presenting the mainstream media , Sure profit , selling ,...
by Dennis L. Page 9 years ago
Why have mainstream media outlets refused to report on the Exxon oil spill in Arkansas?There was initial reporting on the ruptured pipeline and oil spill in an Arkansas residential area, but as quick as it was reported it has been hushed up. Reporters going to the site have been threatened with...
by Camaron Elliott 9 years ago
Do you trust the mainstream media?(9/11 Question) What is your take on the fact that four (yes 4) separate major news networks announced the fall of building #7 BEFORE the building fell?
by Mara Clemente 9 years ago
Is the mainstream media in cahoots with the government or is this some distorted conspiracy myth?Some blogs debate that the mainstream is mainly PR for both the government and big corporations. Do you think that CNN, for example, reports the truth 100% or only the part of the story they want...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|