While
we like to imagine those who report the news report the facts, in reality
reporters interpret what they see and hear through their own filters and
biases. Newspapers are actually better than televised media because print media
tends to identify “opinion” as “opinion” or editorial. There is little
differentiation of such in the televised or online media. In fact I have zero
faith in the legitimacy of broadcast “news” media, which appears to tilt towards
sensationalism and trying to sway the viewing public to a certain viewpoint.
I’ve
fallen victim myself – particularly when it comes to national or international
news stories. But I was forced to re-evaluate my reliance on our regular news
outlets yet again this week.
I
work in an industry that involves litigation, disagreements, disparate evidence
and diametrically opposed expert opinions; yet, I’ve found myself listening
spellbound to talking heads who allegedly “know the inside scoop” on a major
news event and convey to audiences what is purportedly the “truth”. But that
truth is really a skewed view based upon that news outlets or reporters
preconceived notions.
A
case in point: I was discussing a Florida matter with an attorney this week and
we were musing about the reliability or lack of faith in the US judicial
system. I commented that whenever I have a customer who expresses faith in the
concept of a “jury of one’s peers” that they consider “Casey Anthony” – as an
example of a travesty of justice. But my friend, who I thought would nod in
agreement, instead told me that her husband had attended the entire trial and
conveyed that the evidence against Ms. Anthony was thin, weak, lacked
substance, and could not convince any thoughtful human being that she was
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wow! That hit me like a ton of bricks. I’d
made an assumption, based upon reports from the mainstream media, that there
was uncontroversial evidence, ignored by the jury, of her guilt. I’d been
sucked into the vortex of swirling media speculation and opinion based upon
what the talking heads wanted us to believe.
Based
upon the conversation with my friend and I convinced Casey Anthony is innocent?
No. But I am reminded that I accept what is fed to me by biased reporters
trying to sensationalize stories and reel in viewers to their networks at my
own risk; that I have a duty as a citizen to conduct my own research and look
beyond the sensationalism. Ultimately, we all have to understand that unless we
are witnesses to an event or sit on a jury privy to all of the evidence, or
read the transcripts of a proceeding, we do not have sufficient knowledge to
form an opinion.
Please
try to remember this the next time you hear about a sensational story on CNN or
Fox or NBC. Consider that nobody has all
of the answers but those who were there. Neither the police or the reporters or
the EMTs or the experts know what really happened. And any party to a dispute
only interprets what happened from his or her own perspective. So, don’t be quick to judge. I will try to remember
this.
No comments:
Post a Comment