Once again the U.S. media has lived down to my expectations. I long ago stopped using the title of journalist to describe most of the people who are a part of the news media in this country. True journalists are objective observers, investigators and reporters of the facts. They have studied the English language and utilize it carefully because they know words matter. When they wish to interpret what they have reported they make a clear distinction between the facts and their opinions. Instead, most print and electronic media news people are just reporters who may or may not know how to be objective, distinguish fact from opinion, or use the language they call their own. If they are television personalities, they must look pretty. If they are radio voices, they must possess a commanding voice. If they are employed by a newspaper or news magazine, they must know how to follow the age-old reporting format of the inverted pyramid. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on possessing journalistic skills.
Yesterday I watched one talking head after another blunder their way through reporting on the horrific Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Rolls and many others at an informal gathering in Tucson. Fox News reporters informed me that Giffords was dead. They then reported she was still alive. Later I was told the judge was dead. Then he was alive. They he was dead. In their defense, they apparently did attempt to get official word and actually got confirmation of erroneous information from two different government sources. But I also sensed it was important to be the first media outlet with the news, and reporting erroneous information with the caveat, "We haven't confirmed this as yet" was preferable to waiting for verification.
Of course, immediately the various reporters began speculating on motive. Before the name of the suspect was known, possible motives were being paraded before us. The New York Times, under the heading acknowledging a lack of hard facts, "Motive unclear, but…," wrote this morning, "The shootings raised questions about potential political motives…" The reporter, Michael Doyle, doesn't reveal who was raising the questions. He acknowledges that officials wouldn't speculate, but refers to "Democrats" who "decried the fierce partisan atmosphere." The lack of factual information leaves me wondering if it was only Mr. Doyle who had those thoughts or if he truly had spoken with a significant number of Democrats or influential Democrats who expressed that thought.
In a companion article by Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike entitled New focus on political vitriol, the lead paragraph informs us that the incident "set off what is likely to be a wrenching debate over anger and violence in American politics." So they are now reporting on what might happen? The next sentence is a disclaimer, "While the exact motivations of the suspect…remained unclear…" That is, they have no idea whatsoever his motivations were because the police either had no idea or were not disclosing whatever information they had. They then write about how this episode "quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation's political culture." Has it? Perhaps, but I need to know the facts. Whose attention is thus focused? What evidence is there that these things have become this so-called undercurrent? The rest of the article did not answer these questions. Instead, it reports that both Republicans and Democrats expressed shock and dismay. There is a statement by the National Jewish Democratic Council vaguely blaming "political rhetoric" that has resulted in "vitriol" in our society for the incident. Remember, at this time no officials have issued any statements about the suspect's motives. There are no facts to report. But that doesn't stop these two reporters from bringing up Sarah Palin's website, last spring's protests of the healthcare bill, and unnamed Republicans (unnamed by unnamed Democrats) who supposedly "seemed to raise the prospect of armed revolt if Washington did not change its ways. The implication seems to be that this kind of political rhetoric, if it took place, is wrong, inflammatory and ultimately responsible for six deaths and perhaps thirteen other wounded people. They may be right. After all, this same kind of political rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence resulted in a war…and our current government.
I anxiously await the journalist who will give me the facts. I continue to hope there is still a journalist who can patiently wait for enough verifiable information before reporting to me the truth. Of this I am confident: We will very soon become tired of hearing the word "vitriol."
No comments:
Post a Comment