If Sarah Palin continues to brag about saying, “Thanks but, no thanks” to federal dollars for the Bridge to Nowhere, should journalists mention that this is a questionable statement? Many know that Mrs. Palin did support the Bridge to Nowhere, and only decided “not” to support it when it came under scrutiny. She also kept the federal funding and did something else with it. The public does not know much about this woman that could be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and such information could provide more insight to her character.
This is one small example, but I’m curious about how she kept repeating this statement, and that it wasn’t out right disputed by reporters. One response by a, for lack of a better word, “biased” reporter, was that this would be an example of a reporter passing judgment on Palin…He said the reporter’s job is to give equal airtime to the candidates, and the viewers should evaluate what the candidates say themselves. If viewers want to explore the issues anymore, he said, they should go online and investigate, or look to other news sources. I thought to myself, “Isn’t that your job?” His theory is that all of the information he compiles should be reported as is, as said, and that’s all. He presents that information, and leaves it to the viewers to decide. This is one reporter’s view, but it lost me.
It’s those that always believe what the self-proclaimed ” most trusted news in the universe,” or “political team sent from God” tells them, and don’t know that they should question news reports, that are at a loss when journalists are not thorough. It’s the people that “don’t have time” beyond watching the hour news in the background while they make dinner, that deserve more. They put faith in journalists that the information reported is legitimate.
I believe that the people that do look deeper into stories, are more inclined to branch out to other news medium anyway. People that scope out a variety of sources understand that throwing all of their trust into a few people sitting around a desk deciding what is relevant news in the world, wondering how to tell a story about Wall Street crashing in a 2 minute segment, may not have included all of the necessary facts.
It could really be a great deal. In return for in-depth reporting, people will tune into their news show, ratings will soar, advertisers will start paying even bigger bucks, and reporters can ask for a raise! But, even without the in-depth reporting, viewers tune in and hold up their end of the bargain. The advertisers are just as much of a problem as the journalists. The latter is not involved enough, the former is involved too much
After debates, for example, the coverage is more about the candidates’ clothes or how many times they blinked, versus policy. All it would take it, “She looked great, but there are a few things she just said that don’t add up.” But when this is not happening, viewers hear the news, turn off their TV, eat dinner, go to bed, and the information settles in.
This is why certain campaigns go for broke and say anything they want, regardless of credibility. They know that journalists will rarely push hard to correct them, and as long as they keep repeating their point, truth or lie, the job is done. Re-visiting stories down the road usually doesn’t clean up a mess. It often makes it messier. The un-truths have had time to settle. Who is it that said that “you can’t un-ring the bell?” People are still concerned that Obama is a Muslim, and many people still believe that Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia, or because her airplane made a refueling stop in Ireland.
Washington Post reporter Shankar Vedantam said,
a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people’s minds after it has been debunked — even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.
The rest of his article is here
So, should a journalist be obligated to commit a little more, dig a little deeper, ask a few more questions, and make sure that what they air is credible? Limited time and advertisers are big issues for the hour and half-hour news programs. Too much time and advertisers are big issues for the 24 hour news networks.
As I write this, the Fox New’s homepage “reports” a story about internet rumors (most likely self-generated) about how Biden is going to drop out of the race after the V.P. debate…Valid or not, they “rang the bell.” Fortunately, the Obama campaign has learned what probably cost Kerry the election…You can’t wait for reporters and journalists to call out the smears and lies. It’s up to the campaign to do it.
