From: CHUCK BRAMLET (chuckb@AZTEC.ASU.EDU)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 02:26:53 CDT
First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that when I used the
word "slanting" in my previous post, I meant the intentional
distortion of the article or issue. I was _not_ referring to the
inevitable "writer's point of view" which one finds always present,
in one for or another.
Shying away from other, more obvious examples, I would like to point
out a recent series by our local paper. The series is being referred
to, self-congratulatory, as "prize winning". The series of articles
concerned the State Board of Medical Examiners, and decried the fact
that few of the doctors about whom complaints had been lodged had
been dismissed.
The impression left by the series was that most of these doctors were
incompetent butchers, and shouldn't be allowed near a patient under
any circumstances, and that the BOMEx was imcompetent or worse for
allowing them to practice. A number of cases of doctors still
practicing were reported on, and opined about, in these articles.
However, the reporter didn't have full information for many of these,
if any at all.
Any doctor who has been practicing for any length of time will have
complaints listed against them. The problem here was that few, if
any, of the complaints were of serious problems, like sewing up a
patient with a hemostat inside, or the quality of care leading to the
patient's death.
The reporter can start out to report fairly, or the reporter can
start out to "go get em". If the reporter intends to report fairly,
then the resultant story is a more balanced one. If the reporter
starts with the intent of "getting" someone, or some organization,
they have already crossed the line, because in their zeal to get the
article they will ignore major pertinent facts and amplify minor non-
pertinent ones, all to support their assumption.
When that happens, you no longer have reporting, you have pettiness,
retaliation, and extortion. The misquote is always on the first
page, the retraction is always on the last. And the public gets only
half the story.
One other tidbit about our local "rag". We have an election coming
up here next week. Ten years ago, the paper would have profiled both
candidates, or both sides of an issue, printed how it would go, and
left it up to the voters. Today, the paper only profiles the
candidates, or issues, with whom it agrees, and issues a "How to
Vote" guide.
So much for "fairness" in journalism - at least here.
YiS,
Chuck Bramlet -- I "used to be" an Antelope! WEM-10-95 Member DNRC
ASM Troop 323, Firebird District, Grand Canyon Council, Phoenix, Az.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to
be free." -- Charles Evans Hughes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct personal replies to ----- mailto:chuckb@aztec.asu.edu
