In the time of "fake news" and alternative facts, we should not be surprised by the dishonest media, and yet, I am still slightly surprised by deliberate misleading by the major news. While I find it pretty uneventful that media companies are politically biased (I mean we kind of expect that), I do think that trying to circumvent fact for click-bait is completely heinous.
Is this just a one-sided problem? Absolutely not. In fact, there are two instances recently (on both sides of the aisle) that make me think that the time of journalistic integrity is fading away. Maybe I am wrong.
If you don't keep up with the news (or spend anytime on Twitter), you may not be aware that there is clearly some divide between some NFL players (and fans) and some NFL owners (and the president). In the spirit of that divide, President Trump announced that he was not welcoming the Super Bowl champions to the White House. Now, this alone is not exactly new as the Warriors were not invited from the NBA last year either. However, in what I can only think is an attempt to exacerbate the problem and rile up their loyal followers, Fox News decided to run a story using Eagles' players kneeling to explain that those protesting during the National Anthem were the reason they were no longer welcome. Unfortunately, for Fox News anyway, that picture was not a picture of players protesting, but rather a picture of them praying long before the anthem; for what it is worth, none of the Eagles' players protested during the entire season.
Before we decide to boycott Fox News, let's not forget that there are certainly not the only news organization to do something like this. Not long before this gaffe, a New York Times Reporter (as well as others including a CNN reporter) tweeted pictures of child immigrants in cages to seemingly cause outrage about the current administration's treatment of illegal immigrants. It seemed to work quite well...up until it was discovered that the pictures were from the Obama era. The backlash was quite forceful for this.
Now, were these intentionally malicious or simply a mistake? I guess this basically would help determine whether the reporter had an agenda (I believe most do) or whether they were simply not thorough. Unfortunately, while both companies apologized, they never said how the mistake was made in the first place. In today's world, I do not think it really matters at this point. We have reached a point that most lean heavily one way so depending on how you identify, you have already made excuses for one and tried to crucify the other. In my opinion, whether you support Faux News or Clinton News Network (intentional use), you could probably agree that at the very minimum, journalistic integrity is about as common as Obama at Trump's dinner table.
 |
| A journalist's first motive should always be the truth |
If you don't keep up with the news (or spend anytime on Twitter), you may not be aware that there is clearly some divide between some NFL players (and fans) and some NFL owners (and the president). In the spirit of that divide, President Trump announced that he was not welcoming the Super Bowl champions to the White House. Now, this alone is not exactly new as the Warriors were not invited from the NBA last year either. However, in what I can only think is an attempt to exacerbate the problem and rile up their loyal followers, Fox News decided to run a story using Eagles' players kneeling to explain that those protesting during the National Anthem were the reason they were no longer welcome. Unfortunately, for Fox News anyway, that picture was not a picture of players protesting, but rather a picture of them praying long before the anthem; for what it is worth, none of the Eagles' players protested during the entire season.
Before we decide to boycott Fox News, let's not forget that there are certainly not the only news organization to do something like this. Not long before this gaffe, a New York Times Reporter (as well as others including a CNN reporter) tweeted pictures of child immigrants in cages to seemingly cause outrage about the current administration's treatment of illegal immigrants. It seemed to work quite well...up until it was discovered that the pictures were from the Obama era. The backlash was quite forceful for this.
Now, were these intentionally malicious or simply a mistake? I guess this basically would help determine whether the reporter had an agenda (I believe most do) or whether they were simply not thorough. Unfortunately, while both companies apologized, they never said how the mistake was made in the first place. In today's world, I do not think it really matters at this point. We have reached a point that most lean heavily one way so depending on how you identify, you have already made excuses for one and tried to crucify the other. In my opinion, whether you support Faux News or Clinton News Network (intentional use), you could probably agree that at the very minimum, journalistic integrity is about as common as Obama at Trump's dinner table.
Comments
Post a Comment