Media lies and distortions

Fox

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 8:27 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

With the decline of print media, and the increase in people getting news from Twitter, or from blogs, we're seeing the death of real investigative journalism.

Its a tremendous loss to our society. IMNSHO. No one is digging into the real stories.

(Did the police ever actually name the Moroccan as a suspect? It was out there, I know, but I didn't know it was sourced from the police. I originally saw it in a French-Canadian newspaper, but I'm not sufficiently fluent in French to understand it.)

Not to mention the fact that real investigative journalism is almost always boring for the participants and expensive for the outlets. It's sobering to think that All the President's Men and Spotlight -- despite showing plenty of grunt work -- represented the glitzed-up, Hollywood version.

As for the mosque shooting, it took a while for the police to sort everything out. Obviously, people were distraught and it took time to piece together everyone's statements. Initially, some witnesses were reporting multiple gunmen and claimed that one gunmen shouted, "Allahu Akbar" while other gunmen had Québécois accents. When the dust settled, there was only one Dylan Roof-type perpetrator who indeed was Québécois.

I've come to the point that unless "news" contains a weather alert, I don't believe any of it for 24 hours.

And even the weather alerts seem to be more and more ridiculously melodramatic. I can see why a few inches of snow is a big deal in Atlanta, but in the Upper Midwest, a couple of inches of snow shouldn't cause phones to ping with emergency weather alerts and programming to be interrupted with dire chyrons urging everyone to safety.

amother

Lawngreen

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 8:32 pm

amother wrote:

You mean like the media generalized the executive order that Trump signed and said that he banned all Muslims when that was yet another lie as well?

The definition of media (according to dictionary.com) is-- the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/media

How would you call it without generalizing it?

Okay - your contempt seems to be with "media outlets", not "the media" if we are getting into semantics. Do we agree with that? Or are you upset that people are out there are using radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet to influence people?

Media Outlet: A publication or broadcast program that provides news and feature stories to the public through various distribution channels. Media outlets include newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the Internet.

To your specific point - yes there were probably some media outlets that reported that Trump made an order to ban all Muslims - and if they did they were wrong to do so. However there is no truth to a claim that every single media outlet reported that.

amother

Sienna

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 8:33 pm

Anon to hide my identity. I was in JFK over the weekend, providing legal assistance for people who were "banned"

Donald Trump's Press Secretary Sean Spicer got up at a press conference and said no one was being detained at the airport for more than a few hours due to the ban. Well I was there and he was straight up lying. There were green card holders who were actually deported. There were green card holders detained for 24 to 48 hours.
I was there, so I know he was lying when he said that.

And it is chaotic. That's why CNN reported it. So cute of that Dilbert guy to try to offset that report... Talk about gaslighting.

The most chaotic thing that I can report that's going on is that the CBP didn't even know how to enforce the executive order because there was no clear guidance. And the guidance coming through until today is conflicting. It's chaotic bc Trump didn't bother consulting with the doj or the dhs when drafting this executive order. He didn't think it through or how it would be implemented so it was applied inconsistently all over.

You don't trust the media because Donald Trump doesn't want you to. Because the day after his inauguration, he told you to believe him instead of your eyes- don't trust the live footage from the news helicopter- trust him. Because he tells you that the media is your enemy. One reporter made a false report from the White House on that day, and immediately corrected it, and Donald Trump is using that one time to "prove" to you that all media are lying. He's tricking you. Like an abusive husband. "Don't trust what your friends and family is saying- cut yourself of from all outside forces. Only trust ME. Don't trust your eyes, don't trust your ears. Everyone is lying except for me."

As to the"Muslim ban" thing, people are calling it that because during the election campaign he stated that his intent was to register all Muslims. He then went on to create this ban. In a recent interview, Giuliani stated that Trump wanted to ban Muslims and asked how he could do it legally. Guliani said this proudly, as a Trump supporter. That's why people think he's targeting Muslims. Because Trump said he wants to.

youngishbear

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 8:50 pm

Laiya wrote:

It's not just about checking facts.

The bias is more subtle. It's about WHAT gets coverage. It's about adjectives used in headlines and articles. It's about whose point of view the article focuses on. It's opinion disguised as "news".

It's about careful choice of words, like a current cnn headline that reads: On Gorsuch, it's evangelicas vs atheists. Iow, you'd only like him if you're a religious fanatic.

Huh?

Or perhaps you'd only oppose him if you are a godless amoral nonbelievers?

I agree that word choice makes a difference but in this case your interpretation is based on your own bias.

amother

Black

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 9:09 pm

Laiya wrote:

This is exactly it. They will word things just so, they'll put pictures next to the headline so that if you are someone who skims headlines or doesn't research more background you will be exposed to 'news' that didn't happen. These are some examples from the NYT that angered me:
Their coverage of the murder of three Israeli teenaged boys was warped. In one article they made it all about how Israel was going to take terrifying, out of proportion retaliation. In another they spoke about how Israel pursued and killed one 'suspect,' killing an innocent man who was protesting on the way. They said the boys 'died in the conflict between Palestine and Israel.' They died. Of what? Asthma attacks? A car crash? Were they soldiers? It was so frustrating to see them avoid the truth.

The second was a few weeks ago, when four black teenagers went live torturing a special needs white boy and forcing him to make anti-trump statements. The coverage was the most PC, dishonest article I have ever seen. Those teenagers were charged with a hate crime, but the NYT made the story about how people with special needs often get bullied. The picture with the article was of the tortured boy's family, all white people. If you did not get to read the article, you could be led to think it was a story about how a white family in Chicago went around bullying people with special needs.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/201......html

Their book review of a Hitler biography during the election made several blatant comparisons of Hitler to Trump. It was a book review, and they couldn't leave Trump out of it.

To clarify, I lean liberal but I cannot stand not being able to trust what I read. I do not believe BBC, CNN, or Fox. I find Fox's misogyny and racism to be blatant and appalling and their agenda clear as day. The Skimm chooses carefully what to report every day as their 'big stories' which horrifies me as it's the only news source for many people.

I am SO frustrated lately with feeling like the truth is very difficult to access.

amother

Wheat

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 9:29 pm

amother wrote:

Did any media outlet report that green card holders were deported from JFK? And you say that green card holders were detained for 24-48 hours, but if Trump signed the EO on friday and the NY judge ordered detainees to be released by early Saturday evening (which would make it less than 24-48 hours), then does that mean that the judges ruling was not followed by JFK officials? And did anyone of the media outlets report on this story? Please link these stories because everything I read was the exact opposite of what you are saying so I would like to see if anyone reported it correctly as you described.

Laiya

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 9:35 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Huh?

Or perhaps you'd only oppose him if you are a godless amoral nonbelievers?

I agree that word choice makes a difference but in this case your interpretation is based on your own bias.

My own bias against whom?

How the media picks which points to report on--and to omit--itself demonstrates bias.

Using the headline to mention his religion, AND that he's apparently divisive, is a negative slant, albeit subtle.

Eta. Don't you see a difference in slant between these two headlines?

"On Gorsuch, it's Evangelicals vs. Atheists"
or,

"Gorsuch, Trump's Supreme Court Nominee, was Voted to Circuit Court Unanimously by Dems including Obama, Biden, Kerry and Schumer"

Last edited by Laiya on Wed, Feb 01 2017, 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Wheat

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 10:11 pm

amother wrote:

I don't trust the media because when I look up the original source, it is never as the media present it to be. The article I linked in my op is one example of that, the way the media presented the Executive Order was completely distorted from the original executive order as well. These are just two examples, there are many more that I have noticed where things were not exactly as the media presented them and as of today have had no reason to blame Trump for any of the lies or distortions of the media. But please provide evidence that would make me believe that he is to blame for all of the lies and the distortions of the media (including Canadian news apparently, that posters mentioned on this thread, but I do not follow Canadian news so cant comment on that).

amother

Navy

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 11:04 pm

amother wrote:

Thank you for saying all of this.

Yes, there are unverified and sensational news stories coming out from biased perspectives all across the spectrum.

However, what most concerns me is the outright falsehoods, lies, distortions and untruths coming from the White House coupled with its insistence that the "media" that doesn't report favorably about the White House cannot be trusted.

TeachersNotebook

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 11:38 pm

Oh boy. As you can tell from the thread thus far, there is no right answer. There is never an unbiased fact, because facts are always processed by people- and all people have biases.

I have the same frustration as you about the news. I'm extremely disenchanted and un-trusting about every single news source. And I don't have time to fact check everything that comes out. Instead, I make sure to read a number of different news sources every day. I have a mental tally of sources that have proven to be more right than wrong when reporting a story for the first time. A mental tally of sources that report what I want to hear about in good time, and those that don't. A mental tally of the extent to which each source names their sources, and provides background, and at what level. There is no news source that gives me everything. There are very few news sources that I consider high quality. There are absolutely no news sources I have found without a bias.

For extremely divisive or political things, I make sure to read articles from "the other side" as well, or else I consider myself not to have the full story. As it is, I don't think I ever feel like I have the full story for anything... For something like the Muslim ban, reading articles from both sides didn't seem enough; going back to the source was also key. And I make sure not read articles that seem hype from the headline already. Really, news is complicated enough without adding extra hype.

Then I take the gist of the story from the different sources, take into account key themes and ideas, my own background knowledge on the topic, my own political/moral/ethical/religious views, and my personal life experiences, and come out with my understanding of a situation. Gosh, news is not simple.

amother

Lawngreen

Wed, Feb 01 2017, 11:48 pm

amother wrote:

Try http://bigstory.ap.org/ Associated Press.

FranticFrummie

Thu, Feb 02 2017, 2:21 am

This is why I consider myself to be a "centrist Libertarian". This is why I'm raising DD to be a critical thinker. I'm as likely to read Buzzfeed, Jezebel, and HuffPo as I am to read Breitbart, Gatestone Institute, or The Wall Street Journal.

I get both sides of the story from vastly different points of view. I check sources, and double check. I read corrections and retractions. I check the bylines of the journalists, and make myself familiar with their other work, so I have an idea of where they're coming from.

I do my best to avoid knee jerk emotionalism at all costs, and check my own confirmation biases. If a writer's name is Abdul Mohammed, he could either be a hateful Muslim extremist, or an Arab Xian convert who is advocating for peace. He could even be a moderate Muslim who wants to see people reclaim their culture and religion from the Islamists.

What I find interesting, is when I'm looking for an article to cite for a post, I first filter out all the blogs, and search "news". Depending on the subject, it seems like some topics are exclusively covered by RW sources, and others by LW sources. I'm trying to bring a balance of points of view, but if the LW doesn't want to cover the issue of immigrant crime, or the RW doesn't want to cover civil rights violations, anything I cite is going to make it look like I'm either cherry picking, or that I only read certain types of news.

In the age of "instant information", when something happens that is still developing, there is a rush to beat the competition in getting the word out first. This makes for sloppy reporting, relying on rumor, and conjecture. Twitter "news" adds to the confusion. When riots, vigilantes, and lynchings happen because of early misinformation, the combination can be devastating.

The average person today has NO patience. We all feel helpless, and we want our info NOW! We get the news we deserve. I agree that we should wait 24 hours before reacting, kind of like counting to 10 before you get angry. In another thread, I jumped to a conclusion, and then ended up admitting I was wrong. Basically eating my hat over that one. embarrassed

So, lesson learned, I need to take my own advice and chill out before jumping to conclusions.

amother

Sienna

Thu, Feb 02 2017, 2:24 am

amother wrote:

Most of the info we found out was from friends and relatives (mostly relatives) who had traveled with the individual who was detained because we mostly weren't allowed access to the detainees at the time. The LPRs that I know of who were deported from JFK were deported on Friday night or Saturday before the stay was issued.
If you read the judge's stay, it barred the officials from deporting them, not from detaining them. So the CBP could have still complied with the judge's order while detaining people. When I left JFK, LPRs were still detained who had been there for almost a day....I think this had a lot to do with the fact that the CBP did not receive guidance on how this was to be implemented (you know, bc the DHS wasn't consulted about how this EO should play out), so they probably didn't know whether to let LPRs in, whether the judge's stay was going to be appealed, etc.
I'm not sure who reported what. There was not a whole lot of media around us, at the time, honestly. They were mostly outside with the protesters. I did see some live updates on the fb page from the NYC Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs, but I'm not sure if they mentioned any of these circumstances. That would be a good page to scroll down, though, to see what was going on.
It was kind of infuriating to hear Sean Spicer play it down like nothing had happened when it was totally insane if you were there.
If you don't know whether to believe the media or not, go there. Go to JFK and speak to the attorneys who are still volunteering outside the diner in Terminal 4.

wondergirl

Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:29 am

amother wrote:

Lawyers can lie too. Below is an article about a lawyer who was found guilty of lying. If they are just repeating things they heard from family members then how can we trust that its the truth? What would make it different than the media who just repeat things they heard from family members and then report it as though its fact without investigating it first (and the article posted in the op is evidence of that)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ebook