2012-02-13

A Couple Observations on Reporters

A shorter post today just on two observations I had on the media this weekend.

The first observation concerned this article on muddy signs. I don't really care about the story itself, but this line deserved comment:

"The Free Press requested information from the city on Thursday afternoon... but the city did not immediately respond."

The article is dated for 1 am on the Friday morning. In other words, whichever bureaucrat/secretary got this had at most a few hours to research and communicate city policy (which probably didn't exist on a non-problem such as this) before it was printed. Anybody who has worked with government knows that it is virtually impossible to communicate on an issue in that short a time unless communication materials have been pre-made.

Seeing this phrase always irks me. Rather than wait an extra day to get the facts, far too often, reporters will instead report on something prematurely and it will be either one-sided, incomplete, or filled with unsubstantiated speculation.

In this case, the non-issue wasn't even that pressing. "Staff Writer" would have lost nothing by waiting another day, or even the weekend.

Always be especially skeptical of media reports with the phrases such as "declined to comment", "unavailable for comment", "did not respond", etc..

Second observation: A person from a non-profit in Winnipeg dedicated to helping new immigrants spoke at my church about his work this weekend. At one point he related a story, about his interactions with the media around the deaths of the Hamid Farooq's family. (This is from memory so the details of his story may not be perfect). Essentially, he was being interviewed by a reporter in his positions at this non-profit and was being encouraged to say that the government did not do enough for new immigrants. He told them that the government did a lot for immigrants, and that self-responsibility was important, etc. When he didn't give the reporter the quote critical of the government the reporter was looking for, the reporter lost interest in talking to him.

I am sure that this kind of situation occurs far too often.

The overall lesson: the media does not exist to inform you, that is a beneficial by-product of their activities, the media exists to attract attention and sell it. In addition, each member of the media has their own biases that will shape the news. The media will rarely flat-out lie, but they will often leave out important details or shape stories to attract attention.

Always be wary of what the media says. Also, be wary of what the media doesn't say, it is often as informative.

Also, remember that the media will use some key phrases and weasel words to shape the story without lying. "Declined to comment", "did not respond", "unavailable to comment", etc. are among these. Phrases such as "according to experts", "studies show", "some say", and "[insert vague, general group] says" are also popular. There are others, but I can't list them all, but it's rather a fun game to find these phrases in media reports; it can tell you a lot about what a story's spin.

No comments:

Post a Comment