Public View Of Media Disconcerting
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Not surprisingly, Congress, at 14 percent, was at the bottom of the list.
But other American institutions didn't fare so well either. Newspapers and TV came in at 22 percent and 23 percent, respectively.
That's a little disconcerting to me as someone who has been in the newspaper business for 27 years.
I can say, however, that it doesn't surprise me.
Over the years I've had conversations with and correspondences from readers that bordered on irrational.
Apparently - for whatever reason - readers have developed some pretty bizarre opinions about the way newspapers do business.
There seems to be this unfounded perception that we routinely withhold stories based on a person's status in the community.
I'm not sure why that is, but let me assure you it doesn't happen here.
I don't know how many times someone has called me - literally, I don't know how many times because it has been so frequent - and said something like this:
"Yeah, I got arrested and I don't want it in the newspaper."
Then I explain we don't make exceptions.
Then they say something like, "I know you guys leave people out if they have money or if they're a big name in town."
I explain again that we don't make exceptions and ask for an example of someone whose name has been left out.
At that point, depending on the level of angst, the caller either hurls obscenities, says something like "Thanks for nothing," or hangs up.
So let me explain this one more time: We publish all the arrests.
At the jail, there are booking numbers for each arrest. The numbers are consecutive. It is the police reporter's job to be sure there are no gaps in the jail bookings we cover.
In other words, if you are booked into Kosciusko County Jail, your name will be published in the newspaper. And, depending on the severity of your misdeeds, you may even be the topic of a story on the front page.
No exceptions.
It's the only way we can be credible. It's the only way readers can have confidence in us as an institution.
But no matter what we do, readers continue to have the ill-conceived notion that if you have money, your arrest won't be published.
Maybe it's because there aren't many rich people in our jail bookings. But that's not because we leave them out. It's because rich people generally aren't getting arrested.
But trust me. When they do, it will be duly chronicled in these pages.
It's interesting to note that the police command a 52 percent confidence rating as an American institution. (The military, at 69 percent, is the highest-rated institution.)
So people are pretty confident the cops won't look the other way when a prominent person breaks the law.
Of course, if the cops don't make the arrest, it's never going to get in the newspaper.
But I think these days, with all the changes in the news business, our industry is hurting itself a little bit with regard to confidence and credibility.
I see lots of things going on that trouble me.
Mainly, I see lots of things reported that are mere speculation. Seems the news business used to be more fact-based.
In the rush to get it first, news organizations at times sacrifice getting it right.
Just this past week, pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, smothered his kid and hanged himself.
Very strange, tragic story indeed.
But before any investigative agency had released any information, all the news channels were talking about steroids and how "roid rage" likely was a factor in the deaths.
Maybe it was, but could we wait for the toxicology reports, please? Nah, that could take a week or so. Gotta run with it right now!
There have been many times when news outlets have had to back off speculative stories.
The mother of all retracted speculations came in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.
He wasn't an Arab.
You know it's coming when the reporters says something like: "It's too early to tell, but ... "
Basically, they're saying, "It's too early to tell you, but we don't care, we're going to tell you anyway."
I think that harms the credibility of news and lowers the level of confidence of news consumers.
Another thing I think tends to erode confidence in news is the advent of the Internet.
That whole blogosphere thing is really quite unsettling at times.
Please understand I firmly believe that the free exchange of ideas is the greatest protection of liberty.
And blogging certainly is a free exchange of ideas.
I just wish that bloggers would be a little more careful with facts. I have seen so many things bouncing around the Internet that are patently false, yet are taken as fact by literally millions of readers.
Certainly, I am an advocate of opinion and analysis. But opinions are only valid if they are based on fact.
If you start out an argument with a false premise, everything that follows is logically flawed.
Yet I see plenty of that happening on the Web. So much of it, in fact, that there are Web sites like snopes.com devoted to separating truth from fiction.
Consider this:
At 09:51 universal time (UT) on Aug. 27, Earth makes its closest approach to Mars in nearly 60,000 years.
That phrase, or others like it, has been bouncing around the Internet since 2003. It was true in 2003. But only in 2003. It happened only once. It probably will happen again - in another 60,000 years or so.
Nonetheless, every year, I get calls and e-mails telling me to let readers know about this phenomenon.
I've seen it in newspapers, too, in subsequent years, which is really quite bothersome.
I suppose the point of all this is to let our readers know that we - and most other newspapers - do work toward being fair and credible.
Of course, we make mistakes and fall short from time to time.
But generally, I think newspapers deserve better than a 22 percent confidence rating.
[[In-content Ad]]
Not surprisingly, Congress, at 14 percent, was at the bottom of the list.
But other American institutions didn't fare so well either. Newspapers and TV came in at 22 percent and 23 percent, respectively.
That's a little disconcerting to me as someone who has been in the newspaper business for 27 years.
I can say, however, that it doesn't surprise me.
Over the years I've had conversations with and correspondences from readers that bordered on irrational.
Apparently - for whatever reason - readers have developed some pretty bizarre opinions about the way newspapers do business.
There seems to be this unfounded perception that we routinely withhold stories based on a person's status in the community.
I'm not sure why that is, but let me assure you it doesn't happen here.
I don't know how many times someone has called me - literally, I don't know how many times because it has been so frequent - and said something like this:
"Yeah, I got arrested and I don't want it in the newspaper."
Then I explain we don't make exceptions.
Then they say something like, "I know you guys leave people out if they have money or if they're a big name in town."
I explain again that we don't make exceptions and ask for an example of someone whose name has been left out.
At that point, depending on the level of angst, the caller either hurls obscenities, says something like "Thanks for nothing," or hangs up.
So let me explain this one more time: We publish all the arrests.
At the jail, there are booking numbers for each arrest. The numbers are consecutive. It is the police reporter's job to be sure there are no gaps in the jail bookings we cover.
In other words, if you are booked into Kosciusko County Jail, your name will be published in the newspaper. And, depending on the severity of your misdeeds, you may even be the topic of a story on the front page.
No exceptions.
It's the only way we can be credible. It's the only way readers can have confidence in us as an institution.
But no matter what we do, readers continue to have the ill-conceived notion that if you have money, your arrest won't be published.
Maybe it's because there aren't many rich people in our jail bookings. But that's not because we leave them out. It's because rich people generally aren't getting arrested.
But trust me. When they do, it will be duly chronicled in these pages.
It's interesting to note that the police command a 52 percent confidence rating as an American institution. (The military, at 69 percent, is the highest-rated institution.)
So people are pretty confident the cops won't look the other way when a prominent person breaks the law.
Of course, if the cops don't make the arrest, it's never going to get in the newspaper.
But I think these days, with all the changes in the news business, our industry is hurting itself a little bit with regard to confidence and credibility.
I see lots of things going on that trouble me.
Mainly, I see lots of things reported that are mere speculation. Seems the news business used to be more fact-based.
In the rush to get it first, news organizations at times sacrifice getting it right.
Just this past week, pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, smothered his kid and hanged himself.
Very strange, tragic story indeed.
But before any investigative agency had released any information, all the news channels were talking about steroids and how "roid rage" likely was a factor in the deaths.
Maybe it was, but could we wait for the toxicology reports, please? Nah, that could take a week or so. Gotta run with it right now!
There have been many times when news outlets have had to back off speculative stories.
The mother of all retracted speculations came in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.
He wasn't an Arab.
You know it's coming when the reporters says something like: "It's too early to tell, but ... "
Basically, they're saying, "It's too early to tell you, but we don't care, we're going to tell you anyway."
I think that harms the credibility of news and lowers the level of confidence of news consumers.
Another thing I think tends to erode confidence in news is the advent of the Internet.
That whole blogosphere thing is really quite unsettling at times.
Please understand I firmly believe that the free exchange of ideas is the greatest protection of liberty.
And blogging certainly is a free exchange of ideas.
I just wish that bloggers would be a little more careful with facts. I have seen so many things bouncing around the Internet that are patently false, yet are taken as fact by literally millions of readers.
Certainly, I am an advocate of opinion and analysis. But opinions are only valid if they are based on fact.
If you start out an argument with a false premise, everything that follows is logically flawed.
Yet I see plenty of that happening on the Web. So much of it, in fact, that there are Web sites like snopes.com devoted to separating truth from fiction.
Consider this:
At 09:51 universal time (UT) on Aug. 27, Earth makes its closest approach to Mars in nearly 60,000 years.
That phrase, or others like it, has been bouncing around the Internet since 2003. It was true in 2003. But only in 2003. It happened only once. It probably will happen again - in another 60,000 years or so.
Nonetheless, every year, I get calls and e-mails telling me to let readers know about this phenomenon.
I've seen it in newspapers, too, in subsequent years, which is really quite bothersome.
I suppose the point of all this is to let our readers know that we - and most other newspapers - do work toward being fair and credible.
Of course, we make mistakes and fall short from time to time.
But generally, I think newspapers deserve better than a 22 percent confidence rating.
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092