Another school essay. Better than white screen, huh.
Our readings this week used Dan Rather and CBS news embarrassing lack of fact checking to raise several other media related points that have been lost in the shuffle. Much like the story itself (questions regarding George W. Bushs military record), the main issue is often buried in empty detail and repeated rhetoric.
One of the articles talked about confidential or anonymous sources. In what is a fairly recent trend, news media (especially television) rely heavily on sources which are the equivalent of the newscaster winking and saying I dont make this up, but I cant prove it to you. While I have no doubt anonymous sources are valuable, even in some case necessary, the practice adds another layer of distrust to the already shaky premise that the news is reporting, if not fair, at least accurate information to its viewing public. Especially frustrating in the CBS case is that basic information is more easily available than any other time in history. People can jump on the Internet and use numerous search engines to look up information on friends, neighbors, potential dates... simply anyone. The level of information that can be gathered is dependant on how often the subject has appeared in print; but surely information on someone as incendiary as Bill Burkett, the former (some say discredited) anonymous contact of the story in question, can be found with little trouble.
I decided to find out for myself. A quick Google check (a popular Internet search engine) found numerous articles on Burkett. After adding the descriptor of -CBS, which would remove articles generated with any mention of CBS (and, thus, hopefully find information from before the scandal), two online journal entries rose to the top of the list. The first was from March 19th, 2003, written by Burkett himself and titled What do you say? It opens with the lines I've sat in total grief for the past three years, watching the institutions of America being spent as if they were lottery winnings. I don't want to say it, But I told you so. The subject was altering Bushs military records.
The second article was much more pointed and came from even earlier (November of 2000). The authors were Linda L. Starr and Bev Conover and its cumbersome title Former National Guard officer says Bush aide scrubbed military records leaves little doubt about its contents. I found both articles in less than one minute. Even taking a few more seconds to scan them, I would have an impossible task of labeling Burkett anything but completely biased against George W. Bush. Its a logical step - to me, anyway - that anything Burkett told me, in confidence or not, would be slanted to that end. If I had a job where I wanted to report anti-Bush stories and call them news, he would be a great source for me. Admittedly I dont work in the fair and balanced network news; but surely their fact checkers and research people are at least comparable to a man with only amateur experience in fact checking (and none in journalism. Dont you have to go to college for that?).
I understand completely that the information contained within CBSs story (that George W. Bush has had his National Guard records cleaned up or altered) is an important point. But I will not allow that to make me forgive or deflect the blame from Dan Rather and CBS news shoddy research. There is room for both discussions and its a shame that the rest of the news media feels the two points have to not only be linked, but are placed in some sort of hierarchy where the lesser demeans the greater. I call bullshit. Both points are vitally important to the country and the processes they (independently) serve.
Yes, we need to know if our President lied about his military record.
Yes, we need to know why our news media cant do a simple fact check.
See how easy it is to separate the two?
From the other articles, I have several questions that could require further research. One mentioned the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which ended mandatory balanced coverage in politics. I would like to know the original reasoning behind that repeal. Are those reasons still valid or have they have been lost or corrupted over the last 17 years? The same article mentioned a 3-year-old girl being upset that her pro-Bush sign was ripped up. First, I would like to know why an adult thought it was a good idea to rip up a sign, no matter who was holding it. More importantly, though, I would like to know why anyone would think using a pre-kindergarten child to deliver a political message was an okay thing to do (the article went on to mention that the childs father may have been using his daughter for a stunt that he had pulled before).
One other thing that struck my fancy was the term and concept of narrowcasting. Im not sure how I feel about a President granting interviews to a very small group of people with a specific political agenda; then not allowing transcripts of that meeting to be widely released. The meeting and the interview itself I have no problem with. I do, however, have a problem with a non-security related Presidential interview being controlled in some way (or in this case limited to a handful of people)... supporters or not.
Our readings this week used Dan Rather and CBS news embarrassing lack of fact checking to raise several other media related points that have been lost in the shuffle. Much like the story itself (questions regarding George W. Bushs military record), the main issue is often buried in empty detail and repeated rhetoric.
One of the articles talked about confidential or anonymous sources. In what is a fairly recent trend, news media (especially television) rely heavily on sources which are the equivalent of the newscaster winking and saying I dont make this up, but I cant prove it to you. While I have no doubt anonymous sources are valuable, even in some case necessary, the practice adds another layer of distrust to the already shaky premise that the news is reporting, if not fair, at least accurate information to its viewing public. Especially frustrating in the CBS case is that basic information is more easily available than any other time in history. People can jump on the Internet and use numerous search engines to look up information on friends, neighbors, potential dates... simply anyone. The level of information that can be gathered is dependant on how often the subject has appeared in print; but surely information on someone as incendiary as Bill Burkett, the former (some say discredited) anonymous contact of the story in question, can be found with little trouble.
I decided to find out for myself. A quick Google check (a popular Internet search engine) found numerous articles on Burkett. After adding the descriptor of -CBS, which would remove articles generated with any mention of CBS (and, thus, hopefully find information from before the scandal), two online journal entries rose to the top of the list. The first was from March 19th, 2003, written by Burkett himself and titled What do you say? It opens with the lines I've sat in total grief for the past three years, watching the institutions of America being spent as if they were lottery winnings. I don't want to say it, But I told you so. The subject was altering Bushs military records.
The second article was much more pointed and came from even earlier (November of 2000). The authors were Linda L. Starr and Bev Conover and its cumbersome title Former National Guard officer says Bush aide scrubbed military records leaves little doubt about its contents. I found both articles in less than one minute. Even taking a few more seconds to scan them, I would have an impossible task of labeling Burkett anything but completely biased against George W. Bush. Its a logical step - to me, anyway - that anything Burkett told me, in confidence or not, would be slanted to that end. If I had a job where I wanted to report anti-Bush stories and call them news, he would be a great source for me. Admittedly I dont work in the fair and balanced network news; but surely their fact checkers and research people are at least comparable to a man with only amateur experience in fact checking (and none in journalism. Dont you have to go to college for that?).
I understand completely that the information contained within CBSs story (that George W. Bush has had his National Guard records cleaned up or altered) is an important point. But I will not allow that to make me forgive or deflect the blame from Dan Rather and CBS news shoddy research. There is room for both discussions and its a shame that the rest of the news media feels the two points have to not only be linked, but are placed in some sort of hierarchy where the lesser demeans the greater. I call bullshit. Both points are vitally important to the country and the processes they (independently) serve.
Yes, we need to know if our President lied about his military record.
Yes, we need to know why our news media cant do a simple fact check.
See how easy it is to separate the two?
From the other articles, I have several questions that could require further research. One mentioned the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which ended mandatory balanced coverage in politics. I would like to know the original reasoning behind that repeal. Are those reasons still valid or have they have been lost or corrupted over the last 17 years? The same article mentioned a 3-year-old girl being upset that her pro-Bush sign was ripped up. First, I would like to know why an adult thought it was a good idea to rip up a sign, no matter who was holding it. More importantly, though, I would like to know why anyone would think using a pre-kindergarten child to deliver a political message was an okay thing to do (the article went on to mention that the childs father may have been using his daughter for a stunt that he had pulled before).
One other thing that struck my fancy was the term and concept of narrowcasting. Im not sure how I feel about a President granting interviews to a very small group of people with a specific political agenda; then not allowing transcripts of that meeting to be widely released. The meeting and the interview itself I have no problem with. I do, however, have a problem with a non-security related Presidential interview being controlled in some way (or in this case limited to a handful of people)... supporters or not.