Don't blink, you might miss the truth

[Wombat]

I sometimes wonder if we're really better off knowing about every bad incident that happens throughout the world daily. I think it's really possible to have too much information. (I'm not talking here about not trying to get at the truth...I'm just talking about having information from every corner of the globe thrown at us hour after hour every day.)

Susan

It's bad if the terrrible state of the world leads people to be dysfunctional. I suppose I think it's bad if people have bad news hurled at them all the time but much worse if they have to go out of their way to find out about the bad news should they want to.

Sometimes, though, people talk as though they have a right not to be told about bad news that casts their country, government, president or whoever in a bad light. I don't believe that we have any such right and I believe it is actually unpatriotic to want to exercise it. Received historical reports of probably most battles in history have often been shown to have been grossly innaccurate, often heavily fabricated by the leader who managed to survive. Since soldiers whose lives are endangered rarely keep silent, it is extraordinary how the leaders keep getting away with it. It shows that even two hundred or a thousand yeaars ago, if people in power wished to preserve a lie then that's what gets into the official accounts.

[Flyingcursor]

You want the truth?
You can't handle the truth.


Thanks. I'll be here all week.

[missy]

jGilder wrote:
"We usually have no problem finding out about the good things, but the bad things go un-reported."


Actually - I believe it's the opposite. "Bad" news sells. Good news doesn't. Our local paper has a "Good news" section - it's hidden in the Tempo section on page 4 or 5. Usually one or two sentences about a subject.
Without digging and looking at lots of alternate sources, have you read anything about the continued relief efforts for the Tsunami? How about the good things the military does on a daily basis? Stories of the kids graduating this year? Companies opening and jobs being offered? (I'm just trying to think of some of the bad news that has gotten a lot of press lately). No - without digging, the Tsumani is history. You won't find it easy to hear of the good things the military does on a daily basis. You'll only read about the kids that have dropped out. And you'll only hear about companies that close.

Good news isn't news, and people don't want to read about it. It's like car and plane wrecks - no one talks about the millions that are safe every day, only the few that crash.


Missy

[Caj]

jGilder wrote:
"We usually have no problem finding out about the good things, but the bad things go un-reported."


Actually - I believe it's the opposite. "Bad" news sells. Good news doesn't. Our local paper has a "Good news" section - it's hidden in the Tempo section on page 4 or 5. Usually one or two sentences about a subject.

Right. This is my experience too.

My brother runs a well-read conservative blog, and once he published a rant about how the media was a bunch of liberal traitors because they heavily reported bad news from Iraq, and underreported good news like the rebuilding of infrastructure.

I considered this a dim comment: a murder always gets page 1, a new road being built might never make the news. That's the same here in the States. No, that doesn't mean there is a giant conspiracy to suppress the truth or give comfort to the enemy, and no it doesn't mean the media is politically biased. That's just how the media is normally.

Caj

[missy]

Caj wrote:
"No, that doesn't mean there is a giant conspiracy to suppress the truth or give comfort to the enemy, and no it doesn't mean the media is politically biased. That's just how the media is normally. "

Oh - I agree - I don't think it's suppression of truth at all - like I said about the car wreck - it's what sells.

Anyone in the US remember "Grit" newspaper? It was a weekly publication that only reported good news, feel good, Paul Harvey type stories. I wonder if it's still around?


Missy

[Caj]

I also remain skeptical of most allegations of stories being underreported.

From what I can tell, lots of people see lots of evidence that stories important to them are being played down or underreported for political reasons.

I think it is easy to reach that conclusion based on very little data---after all, people who rant about XYZZY News probably don't watch it 3 hours every day and take notes. More likely we hear about something on the radio/Internet and don't see it in the paper, and jump to conclusions.

Plus, there are so many factors that determine a story's circulation, including competing stories, scare/shock factor, simplicity, photogenic or symbolic impact, shifting public interest or news themes, etc. There is no need to invoke political bias to explain why suddenly the whole country is being told about Laci Petersen for months.

Not to say such political underreporting doesn't happen. There are magazines and news channels that explicitly target certain political demographics, and of course they're going to report on topics that matter to their readers. Beyond that, however, I think people can see things that aren't there.

Caj

[Wombat]

Actually - I believe it's the opposite. "Bad" news sells. Good news doesn't. Our local paper has a "Good news" section - it's hidden in the Tempo section on page 4 or 5. Usually one or two sentences about a subject.
Without digging and looking at lots of alternate sources, have you read anything about the continued relief efforts for the Tsunami? How about the good things the military does on a daily basis? Stories of the kids graduating this year? Companies opening and jobs being offered? (I'm just trying to think of some of the bad news that has gotten a lot of press lately). No - without digging, the Tsumani is history. You won't find it easy to hear of the good things the military does on a daily basis. You'll only read about the kids that have dropped out. And you'll only hear about companies that close.

Good news isn't news, and people don't want to read about it. It's like car and plane wrecks - no one talks about the millions that are safe every day, only the few that crash.


Missy

No, this isn't a case of the media not reporting good news. It's a case of the media not reporting stories that aren't news at all. What on earth are tsunami relief workers supposed to be doing other than bringing tsunami relief? The military are paid to do a job. It's not news when they are doing it effectively. I doubt that they'd want that reported. Wouldn't they suspect that you were insinuating that it is a surprise that they are doing their job when you report in glowing term that it is business as usual down at the military base?

I've seen enough of institutions, educational and military, from the inside to know that bad things go on on a regular basis as well as good things. For example, sexist behaviour bordering on, and sometimes spilling over into, genuine abuse takes place in certain university colleges. I can think of only a single case in Australia when someone was brave enough to go public. More often stories like this emerge from the military but they tend to be more extreme. Routine bad behaviour goes unreported just like routine good behaviour. You might not see a story about a company functioning well; neither do you see a headline like: CEO of Burp Enterprises bullies underlings for third day running. BTW, if a company is doing well financially, you'll certainly hear about it on the financial pages.

[missy]

Wombat wrote:
"It's a case of the media not reporting stories that aren't news at all. What on earth are tsunami relief workers supposed to be doing other than bringing tsunami relief? The military are paid to do a job. It's not news when they are doing it effectively."

Wombat, I have to respectfully disagree. Yes, tsunami relief workers should, of course, be bringing relief. But there is still a great need for money, supplies, and people to help in these areas on an ongoing basis. If the general public doesn't read about the needs, they don't realize there still is a need. The "crisis-de-jour" takes over, and all the areas that still need help go by the wayside.

As for the military doing it's job, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. I'm talking about stories like Sg 1stclass Shayne Beckert and his efforts in trying to bring an Iraqi widow and family to the US. I've yet to see this (except if you do some searching) being posted widely in news sources.

I refuse to accept that only "bad" things are news, and good things aren't. Kinda the glass "half full" or "half empty", huh?

Missy

[Wombat]

I refuse to accept that only "bad" things are news, and good things aren't. Kinda the glass "half full" or "half empty", huh?

Missy

I think you're mising my point. Lot's of bad things get institutionalised—covering up sexual abuse within Anglican and Catholic churches. This stuff has been going on for decades unreported. If it's routine it doesn't get reported. Lots of people know, however.

Good things that happen which are above and beyond the call of duty do get reported. At least, it seems like that to me.

[The Weekenders]

Well here we go again; on April 9th this year at the sight of the staged event in Baghdad tens of thousands spilled into the streets in the largest anti-American demonstration since the US-led invasion. The BBC barely covered it, and I haven't seen hide nor hair of the story here in the US.

It (big demonstration) was front page news of my Knight-Ridder paper (the West County Times, local version of Contra Costa Times). It was a long story and included a quote by an Iraqi official that it was a GOOD sign, that a large-scale peaceful demonstration of dissent had taken place. Buried in the back was the latest good news of various factions agreeing to participate in new government.

If the SF Chron missed it, then that is somewhat newsworthy. But I haven't read that rag in years.

For all of the poison I read here about the US involvement and hopelessness, I hear weekly reports from actual soldiers or visitors who talk of the good things that are happening in Iraq. That doesn't make front pages either.

Its all a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE!!!!

[missy]

Wombat - I don't want to get into a discussion of the abuses of the Church (they were WRONG, and the cover-up and moving about was WRONG)........

But, and please, correct me if I'm mistaken, at least in this area, there was no past reporting of abuse, because the abuse was not known outside of the Church and those that were directly effected by it. When it did become known because of outside involvement (the earliest case I remember going to court was in the early to mid '90s) it was front page news and lead story for the entire time of the trial.
Yes, the Church (horribly) covered up the abuse. But the media didn't know about it, so how could there have been reporting of it?

Missy

[Jeff Stallard]

So it sounds like the media favors neither good nor bad, but merely...different. As long as something is out of the ordinary, it's news.

[MarkB]

The mass rally was reported on CBC television with about five minutes of commentary. Haven't seen or heard anything since.

Being a librarian, I get the chance every day to scan through many newspapers e.g. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Globe and Mail, USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, Detroit Free Press, and through our online downloadable news service NewsPaper Direct; The Times of India, China Daily.

What is interesting is a lot of the stories are similar thanks to newswires but it is in the back pages of editorals, and op-ed that you find the tidbits of difference.

MarkB

[Wombat]

Wombat - I don't want to get into a discussion of the abuses of the Church (they were WRONG, and the cover-up and moving about was WRONG)........

But, and please, correct me if I'm mistaken, at least in this area, there was no past reporting of abuse, because the abuse was not known outside of the Church and those that were directly effected by it. When it did become known because of outside involvement (the earliest case I remember going to court was in the early to mid '90s) it was front page news and lead story for the entire time of the trial.
Yes, the Church (horribly) covered up the abuse. But the media didn't know about it, so how could there have been reporting of it?

Missy

Well this stuff was known when I was growing up—late 50s through 60s. We were warned about three groups in particular—priests, schoolteachers and scoutmasters. Nobody said they were all paedophiles, we were just warned to be on the lookout and, as children, we passed on warnings to others about those we knew about or suspected. I'd say I had doubts about 1 in every 10. I'd bet that some of my suspicions were probably wrong whilst others went through unnoticed. Even my (fairly conservative) parents warned me to be careful and actually discussed teachers and scoutmasters they suspected of being suspicious. People caught out were moved and sometimes even fired but *never* with publicity. I later discovered from thsoe who knew first hand that abuse in orphanages was even worse.

Now, is it likely that things every knowing schoolboy knew, and all knowing parents, weren't known to the media? Somehow I don't think so.

The 90s was when people started really speaking out and finding reporters who'd listen. But since this stuff was standard when I was growing up and known to my parents, I assume it had been going on in their day. My impression was that this knowledge had been passed down from older to younger children and parents to children for generations.

[missy]

perhaps it's a county difference, but I didn't have anyone "warning" me about priests, etc. when I was growing up. Of course, this may also be because the priest that was the pastor of our church, left when I was in 6th grade, and married the nun that was our principal of our school. And all of us kids suspected that was going to happen (WE weren't surprised, while the adults were!).
I also grew up in a fairly rural area, everyone knew everyone else, so that may also be a part of it.
The one priest I did know personally that was brought up on charges wasn't for molesting boys, but for molesting teen girls at the high school I went to (again, not surprised by the allegations at all).

So - I was as clueless as anyone before the cases started in the'90s.

Missy