"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehood and errors."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. President
I was talking with an old friend by telephone last night and after the usual pleasantries the discussion turned to our disenchantment with how most of the major media is covering the war in Iraq. Both of us tire of the constant barrage of bad news we're getting and yearn for more balanced reporting of what's going on over there.
Dean Esmay at Dean's World does too:
"It is alternately amusing and frustrating to those of us who know something about the history of warfare and military occupations to watch the news about Iraq. If you watch the news carefully, and ignore all the screaming and squawking...you know that Iraq has gone quite well so far, and much better than anyone had a right to expect."
Dean links to Australian weblog Chrenkoff, where blogger Arthur recaps positive accomplishment after positive accomplishment occurring in Iraq over the past year. The spread of democracy, the improving economy and higher standards of living, rehabilitation of orphanages and centers for the handicapped, the resurgence of education and improving healthcare are but a few of the achievements he writes about.
Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit features a USA Today editorial in which Major Ben Connable, a Marine serving in the Middle East, talks about what he sees that the defeatists in this country don't:
"Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the 'Sunni Triangle' was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war. As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf."
My friend asked me why the news doesn't report on the many good things that are happening. I would ask the same question. Why don't they? Mark Cuban at his weblog, Blog Maverick, has some thoughts:
"We are now in an era where media searches for stories that will generate media coverage of the story. Stories are written not for the value they bring the readers, viewers or listeners, but rather the volume of coverage they will bring."
If you suggested that this is the case to someone like Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, Peter Jennings or Bill O'Reilly, no doubt they would recoil in horror. They obviously do not see themselves in the same light as many of the American public do, choosing to ignore accusations that they're biased with pious, holier-than-thou claims of being fair and balanced.
Timothy W. Maier, writing for Insight On The News, says that Americans rate the trustworthiness of journalists at about the level of politicians and as only slightly more credible than used-car salesmen:
"Only one in four people believe what they read in newspapers. Chicago Tribune Editor Charles M. Madigan may have put it best when he offered this advice: 'If you are a journalist, you should probably just assume that you come across as a liar.' "
Ultimately, I believe, this declining lack of trust in news reporting will translate into a reshuffling of what constitutes major media today. The American people will not forever support an institution, be it a newspaper, or a television network, in which they have little faith. I believe we are hungry for, and would heartily support, a news outlet that would report the news without bias, airing all sides of an issue and allowing us to reach our own conclusions. Is such a thing possible? Probably not, but I can dream, can't I?
No comments:
Post a Comment