X
NEWS SENTINAL IS A SLEAZY SUPERMARKET TABLOID PAWNING ITSELF OFF AS A LEGITIMATE NEWS PAPER WITH JOUNRALISTIC ETHICS. A LIE!
their main modus operandi- is the big lie- tell a big lie keep telling it and soon people will believe it to be true.
X
http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local/Pssst--Did-you-hear-about-the-quarterback-who-got-doped-up-then-joined-the-Klan-
X
X
Pssst! Did you hear about the quarterback who got doped up then joined the Klan?
By Kevin Leininger, kleininger@news-sentinel.com
Tuesday, December 29, 2015 12:01 AM
What's the difference between the media and monkeys?
Monkeys learn from their mistakes. Whether alleged journalists' failure to do likewise represents a lack of judgment, intellect or character is open to legitimate debate.
Less than two months ago, you may recall, some "news" outlets -- including at least two Fort Wayne TV stations -- repeated allegations originally attributed to the "Anonymous" Internet group naming two local politicians among a group of officials with ties to the Ku Klux Klan. No proof was offered, and in fact Anonymous subsequently distanced itself from the story. But a lot of reputations were called into question, none more legitimately than those of people who chose to repeat hurtful rumors from a questionable source that would be impossible to independently verify.
Now, in an appalling example of short-term, industrywide memory loss, history has repeated itself -- only worse.
In a story that was given little credibility even by those repeating it, Al Jazeera reported over the weekend that several prominent athletes, including a well-known and respected quarterback with Hoosier ties, had used performance-enhancing drugs. The Arabic network isn't exactly known for investigative sports exposes, it was noted; the story's main source has recanted and the quarterback has dismissed the report as "garbage." But numerous national and local media outlets (not including The News-Sentinel as of Monday, thankfully) ran with the story anyway.
Does that mean Al Jazeera's report was false? Not necessarily. Many athletes have been proved to be liars after denying the use of performance-enhancing substances, and there is a curious link between the quarterback's wife and the clinic in question that deserves further investigation. One day, perhaps, such scrutiny would produce irrefutable facts -- or at least credible suspicion.
But that day is not yet here, making those who repeated the story gossip-mongers, not journalists.
Most of what fills the airwaves and newspapers today, frankly, is not really journalism at all. As budget constraints lead to smaller staffs, there is an increased reliance on meetings, news conferences, news releases and other time-saving shortcuts. Genuine reporting is more like fishing: You pick your spot and drop a line in the water not knowing when, or whether, you will catch something. But unless you want to buy bland, prepackaged fish, you've got to give the process the time it demands.
This is just a sports story, true, but the stakes are high. As noted in November in the wake of the "Klan" story, the Gallup Poll has found that just 40 percent of Americans have a "great deal" or even a "fair amount" of trust that the media will report the news accurately and fairly. When people don't trust journalists, they'll either avoid the news entirely or pay attention only to those sources that reinforce their preconceptions. Neither is likely to produce an electorate capable of making well-informed decisions, whether that mistrust is justified or not.
In 1956, the American National Election Study found that 66 percent of the population thought newspapers were fair. Even by 1973, just 15 percent told the General Social Survey that they had "hardly any" confidence in the press -- a figure that by 2008 had risen to 45 percent in the same study. Some have blamed this on the fragmentation of the news business, but if that's true it's only because new sources of news have exposed biases that were less obvious when a handful of newspapers, wire services and TV networks could control what Americans were told. In 2004, Pew Research Center researchers polled 547 journalists and found that 34 percent considered themselves liberal but just 7 percent conservative.
But the quarterback story, like the Klan story before it, is not an example of political bias. Both are examples of the kind of lazy, sloppy journalism that is becoming all too common in the age of the Internet and 24-hour cable news cycles, where information is disseminated without proper verification then revised or withdrawn as necessary, as if no one ever noticed.
As a journalist, I'm far from perfect and have the corrections to prove it. But most consumers of news know the difference between an honest mistake, sloppiness, indifference, bias or worse -- and they'll learn from our blunders even when we don't.
This column is the commentary of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The News-Sentinel. Email Kevin Leininger at kleininger@news-sentinel.com or call him at 461-8355.
X
