I'm going to return to the story about the little girl returned to her grandparents cited below (in chronological order, that is). If you will notice from the various reports, only ONE SIDE of the story is being told -- the grandparent's side. There are no interviews with the caseworkers involved and we know next to nothing about their reasoning and rationale for their actions.
You want to know why the caseworkers are silent? Confidentiality! State regulations and the ethics of any dedicated social worker prevent them from answering questions or shedding any light on the situation. They are simply not allowed to give "their side" of the story.
Of course, the media knows this, but you'd never guess it from their reports. They make it look like they've covered every angle and they are providing you -- the viewer -- with their objective take on the entirety of the topic. But it's next too impossible to present an objective report when all the information the reporter is getting is one-sided.
Imagine if you were involved in a disagreement with your partner/spouse, child, neighbor or coworker. You turn on the evening news and the story of your disagreement is splashed across the screen. The reporter is telling the world what a horrible human being you are! You were never interviewed for the story, so all the information about the situation comes from the person you have the disagreement with and even a few of their cohorts are talking about disagreements they've had with you too.
Would you think you had been treated fairly? (I'm guessing that most people would think not.)
You want to know why the caseworkers are silent? Confidentiality! State regulations and the ethics of any dedicated social worker prevent them from answering questions or shedding any light on the situation. They are simply not allowed to give "their side" of the story.
Of course, the media knows this, but you'd never guess it from their reports. They make it look like they've covered every angle and they are providing you -- the viewer -- with their objective take on the entirety of the topic. But it's next too impossible to present an objective report when all the information the reporter is getting is one-sided.
Imagine if you were involved in a disagreement with your partner/spouse, child, neighbor or coworker. You turn on the evening news and the story of your disagreement is splashed across the screen. The reporter is telling the world what a horrible human being you are! You were never interviewed for the story, so all the information about the situation comes from the person you have the disagreement with and even a few of their cohorts are talking about disagreements they've had with you too.
Would you think you had been treated fairly? (I'm guessing that most people would think not.)
The media are to blame! Most reporters of my acquaintance are so infatuated with their "importance" that they never consider that they need to reflect on their work. There are obviously at least two sides to every story, but a report with a "breaking" story will spew it on the air and then forget all about it because the next story must be delivered. Depth is not a quality of commercial media.
ReplyDeleteOf course the audience has been conditioned to sound bites and no longer has the patience for lengthy, in depth coverage.
Grrrrr!
People who work for the media are pretty much the lowest form of life in the universe. Of course, there are exceptions, Peter Edwards, Michael Moore, but generally, they're scum.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that the current state of the mainstream media leaves a lot to be desired!! In my opinion, media started to lose its standing when Corporate America starting taking it over.
ReplyDeleteBut it hasn't always been this way. During the 60s, the media helped secure passage of the Civil Rights Act through its reporting of the efforts of MLK and others, plus it also helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War through UN-embedded reporting.