Posted on 01/04/2006 3:57:30 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
Once again, the MSM (mainstream media)has exposed its complete lack of credibility, decency, morality and integrity.
The story this morning of the trapped West Virginia miners is just another example of how our primary sources of information cannot be trusted.
Let's face facts, folks....even here at FR, we get our information from the MSM. However, by assembling many sources and then testing those sources against the combined experiences of those on this forum, we determine whether a particular story passes the smell test.
However, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, we must still have some faith in some of the sources of stories we read. Unfortunately, that faith is continually shaken by the exposing of media bias, sloppiness, immorality, etc.
What appears to have happened this morning with the trapped miners story is that some members of the media were in the vicinity of the command post when the radio call from the mine came back that the miners were found.
It was from that single thread of information that the story appeared to break out that the miners were all found alive. Even the governor, who stated he had to ask his security detail what was going on , was not aware of the breaking story that all 12 remaining miners were found alive. You see, the governor was in the church with the families. A single family member received a phone call from someone watching the news that it is was being reported that all 12 remaining miners were found alive. That family member announced the news to the others in the church and then the bells started ringing.
The media will hide behind the "unconfirmed report" label that was ignored. The media will refuse to take responsibility (most are liberals after all) for toying with the lives and hearts of the families of those who were lost. The media will refuse to acknowledge any need to show concern for those waiting nearly 2 days for news about their loved ones, but will talk about the need to be first with the story.
Just like Hurricane Katrina reports about rapes and murders and 10,000 dead, the media has demonstrated that facts do not matter.
Just like on 9-11, when the media was reporting at least 10,000 dead in the twin towers.
Just like, just like, just like..........
So, let us use this space to compile a list of the media mistakes. Let us make this the news and let us refer back to this thread whenever a news story breaks and our "trusted" sources get it wrong----again.
Uh, how are you pretty sure?
This a natural side effect of instant communication- whether MSM, here, or on the blogs. Remember all the bad rumors spread on here after Katrina? Many of them were from the media, others were from people posting what a "friend" saw or from an e-mail they had received, with few people actually questioning the accuracy of the report. Accuracy has been sacrificed in favor of the acclaim that comes from getting credit for reporting the story first. We must all be careful in both reporting what we heard and believing what is reported.
My dear daughter, bless her heart, on hearing he was dehydrated, got to wondering if he had a living will.
"What you are stating is simple human nature,
however I have not seen a trend of FReepers
sticking with a story when it is proven false.
Can the same be said of the MSM (or liberals)?"
I see that many FReepers this morning are holding on to the notion that this false story is the fault of the MSM. It is the 1st time I have seen it happen here.
I think it is their emotions talking and not the facts so I understand to a point.
As for the MSM - Yes, they do it often, but not every reporter is a liberal. To blame the MSM right out of the gate is the same as the people who blame Bush for everything.
We should not lose slight that we still have a miracle on our hands. The fact that even one of the miners is still clinging to life after being exposed to carbon monoxide for that long is a miracle.
A better term is the SOS (stuck on stupid) media.
re: the media had no choice, but to report what was told to the church.
That's the problem. They were not reporting that they were being told by people in the church that a rescue had been made. Their report was stated as fact when they did not know for a fact that it was accurate.
I know it sounds like nit picking, but it's an important distinction, THE important distinction, between you telling a family member or friend what you've heard and having the responsibility of going on the air to all of America and reporting what's happened.
I fear those reading my posts on this will think I am taking someone to task. That's not the case. I am simply trying to point out that journalists are held to a higher standard and they have an obligation to keep that standard in mind when they report.
"We should not lose slight that we still have a miracle on our hands. The fact that even one of the miners is still clinging to life after being exposed to carbon monoxide for that long is a miracle."
Please know I understand what you are saying and we should be happy, but why does it have to be a miracle?
To me, I can't call it a miracle because why only one? Why not 13 miracles?
Why can't it just be a wonderful thing that somehow this one man/McCloy survived against great odds? To say it is a miracle implies that God chooses only him to save and I don't think God works that way.
Very well said.
Why do they even bother with sending people to journalism school?
From a "bloggers" perspective, the criticism of the MSM that will emerge from this incident is not that the MSM was wrong on this one, but that the distinction that the MSM claims, i.e. "only substantiated information", is undermined in a very big, critical, and very, very emotional way.
"re: the media had no choice, but to report what was told to the church.
That's the problem. They were not reporting that they were being told by people in the church that a rescue had been made. Their report was stated as fact when they did not know for a fact that it was accurate.
I know it sounds like nit picking, but it's an important distinction, THE important distinction, between you telling a family member or friend what you've heard and having the responsibility of going on the air to all of America and reporting what's happened.
I fear those reading my posts on this will think I am taking someone to task. That's not the case. I am simply trying to point out that journalists are held to a higher standard and they have an obligation to keep that standard in mind when they report."
I think I understand what you are saying and on that you are correct.
There was one young reporter from FOXNEWS (I can't remember his name)that did say "unconfirmed", and he will probably never get credit for it. He was the one who made me hold off before I got giddy over the news that all had survived.
My question to you is this:
If all the reporters had said "unconfired" would that have been enough or should they have said nothing"?
I just watched the replay of the Geraldo tape at the church. Someone tells Geraldo that the men were alive, Geraldo asks, "Who said?" Other people came out yelling that the men were alive. Their source was, "They". "They said the men are alive." Then the bells started ringing.
Problems like this don't happen every day. But still, I would have thought that there would be one person from the mine designated to communicate with families and that families would know to only accept formal reports.
It is terribly sad, but everyone jumped the gun because it was what they wanted to hear.
The miners WERE found. It was just unfortunate that only one was found alive. If the media had left the story at 'they were found', and said they needed to wait for more information, they wouldn't be sitting there with egg on their faces this morning. The problem is that each network puts their newpeople under pressure to the THE FIRST with the news. That cuts both ways; you can be first and be right, or first and wrong.
Seems to me, they could have waited a little bit longer to break the news. The families were in church, anyway, they could have been given the news when they came out.
No, this is exactly what we should be taking them to task for, in addition to their bias. In this case, as in New Orleans, they were reporting rumors as fact, with no attempt to validate and no caution applied "this is all second hand, not confirmed" etc.
If they couldn't confirm it they should have not reported it, or only reported it as rumor. Posts on places like FR are taken as unsubstantiated, unless specific and credible citations are made, preferably with links. CNN (or the NYT) just states something and you're supposed to trust them.
Think of Risen and his army of anonymous "patriot" leakers. Trust them, their never wrong, never biased, never have an axe to grind, etc., because they're professionals.
Just heard on FOX that they believe it was a foreman who misunderstood what he heard & called a relative inside the church. I can't imagine how he feels. I hope he gets some counselling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.