Irresponsible reporting

Ghoulish Delight · 05-17-2005, 08:45 AM

No, this is not about Newsweek.

This is really not a big deal, but it irks me none the less.

This is an odd story. This guy showed up on a British beach in a wet suit (not a wetsuit, a wet suit) with all the tags cut out. He doesn't speak and when given a pad of paper, he drew a grand piano. So they brought him a piano, and he played, which seemed to calm him down. It's been 6 weeks, still no talking, still no one's identified him, still no communication at all, other than playing the piano. Odd.

But here's what irks me about this article. Notice the caption under the photo. "British authorities ask the public for help to determine the identity of a man, an apparent piano virtuoso, who has not said a word since being found on a beach over a month ago."

Okay, now read the article. "Steve Spencer said the man 'is not the virtuoso that he has been portrayed in the press. He knows a small number of tunes and plays them over and over'"

Man that bugs me. Totally unimportant, but it's such shoddy journalism.

surfinmuse · 05-17-2005, 08:55 AM

GD, agreed. I had been following up on this story since it broke on BBC last week. I think many (hospital audience and press alike) were eager to draw parallels with the David Helfgott story (as portrayed in the movie Shine).

scaeagles · 05-17-2005, 09:31 AM

I realize this thread is not about Newsweek per se, but if it is about shoddy journalism, of course that ties in.

The journalists of today typically do not just want to report the news. They want to make the news by being the person to break the big story. They want to be famous. They want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. They want to find the conspiracy or the hidden truth and be the first to report it. In a world of 24 hour news stations and internet news sites and newspaper and local news and the nightly network news - they want to get noticed. The way to do this is to be the first person to report on the found "piano virtuoso" or to have a story published about the desecration of the Quran by US troops. (Interestingly, it is not reported where these Muslims got the copies of the Quran - being the US government.) Then the reporter becomes the story - being interviewed about how they broke the big piece, showing up on Larry King or Hannity and Colmes. This is why the New York Times reporter.....drawing a blank on his name, but he's the guy who was fabricating all sorts of stuff and got caught....did it. This is why Isikoff went with a huge story that had one unverified and unnamed source (I won't go so far as to say he made it up). Newsweek went with it because they wanted to be first. It's the same thing that happened with CBS and the forged documents.

Reporting actual news isn't enough. It must be sensasionalized. It must be the big story. It must be first. And accuracy be damned. It is things like this that continue to erode the confindence of the public in the media at large. This is not a good thing.

Edited to add: What gets reported in this way is typically negative stories. Reporters get famous most quickly by reporting news that will "bring someone down", a la Watergate. Political leanings come into play, whether to the left or to the right. I doubt you would find Isikoff writing a questionable and unverified piece putting any positive light on anything to do with Iraq or the war on terror.

wendybeth · 05-17-2005, 09:46 AM

I majored in Journalism in college, at least until I discovered it didn't interest me as much as I thought it should, and we used to take random newspapers from across the country for critical analysis. Our local paper, the Spokesman Review, was held up as a barely disguised gossip rag/political cattle prod for the ruling clan of Spokane, the Cowles. (They own the paper). That was twenty years ago, and it's still the same today- they are now being taken to task for their series on our mayor, and their role in creating the story as opposed to simply reporting the news. Anyway, the Christian Science Monitor and the Cleveland Plain Dealer were the two papers that achieved the highest scores for quality of reporting and adherence to ethical journalistic priciples. (I know, a bit of an oxymoron these days). I believe they are still two of the most respected papers out there.

Ghoulish Delight · 05-17-2005, 09:54 AM

This line of discussion, and scaeagles mention of Jayson Blair (the NY Times guy) makes me think of this column from the Chicago Tribune. It's nothing earth shattering, but the assistant city editor mentioned is my cousin. I thought it was pretty cool that his name was brought up as a counterpoint to one of the worst demonstartions of lack of journalistic integrity.

Gemini Cricket · 05-17-2005, 11:18 AM

I, for one, do not trust our media. In fact, I am more likely to rely on BBC for my info, but even then I'm not 100% confident with it. It's sad when a chunk of the country looks to blogs for their news. They should be able to believe what's printed. I also think that the Bush administration controls our media.

I find it ironic that the Bush administration can blast Newsweek for relying on one unreliable source when Bush did the same thing to justify his war in Iraq. (From Thinkprogress.org) McClellan’s issue with the Newsweek story was that it was “based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report.”

Here's a quote from 4/05/04:

QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never every interviewed?

MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked at as part of a broad review by the independent commission that the President appointed… But it’s important that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.

What was that bible verse about casting the first stone? Or the one about a plank in your eye... No one in this administration should be blaming anyone for making mistakes...

QUESTION: He’s the president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That’s his fault, isn’t it?

MCCLELLAN: No.

[White House Press Briefing, 7/17/03]

Oh, right. They don't make mistakes.

Yes, the whole Muslim community hates us because of Newsweek... Yeah....

scaeagles · 05-17-2005, 11:37 AM

GC, if the media is controlled by the Bush administration, who controlled it before his administration? Is it a new phenomena? if they do control the media, how then does this story get published? Are you suggesting outlets such as the NY Times are friendly to Bush and his administration? I see so much negative press about the Bush administration out there (whether deserved or not isn't my point) that I cannot bring myself to believe that the media is being controlled by the Bush administration.

I would suppose the difference in going to war in Iraq and the Newsweek story, at least to me, is that instead of one unnamed source, the intelligence services of the UK, Russia, and Egypt all told us the same thing that the CIA believed regarding WMD. But again, that isn't the point.

The Muslim community hated us before the Newsweek story, most certainly. They hated us before 9/11 and before Bush was elected. What this story does, however, is give propaganda to extremists who believe the retraction is government control of the media. It is fuel for the fire that has long been burning and, sadly, will continue to burn for a long time.

BarTopDancer · 05-17-2005, 11:45 AM

I really think this describes our current media situation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by green day

Dont wanna be an american idiot
Don't wanna nation to drive the new media
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fvck america

Welcome to a new kind of tension
All across the alien nation
Everything isn't meant to be O.K.
Television dreams of tomorrow
We're not the ones who're meant to follow
For that's enough to argue

Maybe I'm the ****** America
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda
Now everybody do the propaganda
And sing along to the age of paranoia

Don't wanna be an American Idiot
One nation controlled by the media
Information age of hysteria
It's going out to Idiot America

We really do live in an age of hysteria. No one reports the news anymore, they report stuff and check facts later, consequences be damned.I quit watching the news the day we invaded Iraq (again). If it's that important someone will tell me (is Regan still dead? How about the Pope?). I do read the news online but you can't get heads or tails from it. Even the stuff coming from other countries has a bias and as all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Scrooge McSam · 05-17-2005, 12:05 PM

The question in my mind is....

Why did this unnamed source not dispute Newsweek's version of events before the story went to press? There seems to be no question that Newsweek went to this source while still in the process of putting this story together.

Why is Newsweek protecting this unnamed source who has subsequently hung them out to dry?

Sheila · 05-17-2005, 12:44 PM

One of the chief editors of Newsweek was on Nightline last night. Man, they put him through the wringer. Although he finally (after much prompting), admitted Newsweek was wrong, his principle justification was this:

They had taken the article to the White House Administration for confirmation. Because the administration had only commented on a different section of the story, and not the section about the Koran, Newsweek took that as "confirmation" of the truth of the Koran story, thus they were basically in the clear to publish an incendiary anecdote.

Today, I heard on the radio that no one would be fired at Newsweek for what happened.

05-17-2005, 08:45 AM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Irresponsible reporting No, this is not about Newsweek. This is really not a big deal, but it irks me none the less. This is an odd story. This guy showed up on a British beach in a wet suit (not a wetsuit, a wet suit) with all the tags cut out. He doesn't speak and when given a pad of paper, he drew a grand piano. So they brought him a piano, and he played, which seemed to calm him down. It's been 6 weeks, still no talking, still no one's identified him, still no communication at all, other than playing the piano. Odd. But here's what irks me about this article. Notice the caption under the photo. "British authorities ask the public for help to determine the identity of a man, an apparent piano virtuoso, who has not said a word since being found on a beach over a month ago." Okay, now read the article. "Steve Spencer said the man 'is not the virtuoso that he has been portrayed in the press. He knows a small number of tunes and plays them over and over'" Man that bugs me. Totally unimportant, but it's such shoddy journalism. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 08:55 AM	#2
surfinmuse Mind the Gap Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 123	GD, agreed. I had been following up on this story since it broke on BBC last week. I think many (hospital audience and press alike) were eager to draw parallels with the David Helfgott story (as portrayed in the movie Shine).
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 09:31 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I realize this thread is not about Newsweek per se, but if it is about shoddy journalism, of course that ties in. The journalists of today typically do not just want to report the news. They want to make the news by being the person to break the big story. They want to be famous. They want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. They want to find the conspiracy or the hidden truth and be the first to report it. In a world of 24 hour news stations and internet news sites and newspaper and local news and the nightly network news - they want to get noticed. The way to do this is to be the first person to report on the found "piano virtuoso" or to have a story published about the desecration of the Quran by US troops. (Interestingly, it is not reported where these Muslims got the copies of the Quran - being the US government.) Then the reporter becomes the story - being interviewed about how they broke the big piece, showing up on Larry King or Hannity and Colmes. This is why the New York Times reporter.....drawing a blank on his name, but he's the guy who was fabricating all sorts of stuff and got caught....did it. This is why Isikoff went with a huge story that had one unverified and unnamed source (I won't go so far as to say he made it up). Newsweek went with it because they wanted to be first. It's the same thing that happened with CBS and the forged documents. Reporting actual news isn't enough. It must be sensasionalized. It must be the big story. It must be first. And accuracy be damned. It is things like this that continue to erode the confindence of the public in the media at large. This is not a good thing. Edited to add: What gets reported in this way is typically negative stories. Reporters get famous most quickly by reporting news that will "bring someone down", a la Watergate. Political leanings come into play, whether to the left or to the right. I doubt you would find Isikoff writing a questionable and unverified piece putting any positive light on anything to do with Iraq or the war on terror. Last edited by scaeagles : 05-17-2005 at 09:37 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 09:46 AM	#4
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I majored in Journalism in college, at least until I discovered it didn't interest me as much as I thought it should, and we used to take random newspapers from across the country for critical analysis. Our local paper, the Spokesman Review, was held up as a barely disguised gossip rag/political cattle prod for the ruling clan of Spokane, the Cowles. (They own the paper). That was twenty years ago, and it's still the same today- they are now being taken to task for their series on our mayor, and their role in creating the story as opposed to simply reporting the news. Anyway, the Christian Science Monitor and the Cleveland Plain Dealer were the two papers that achieved the highest scores for quality of reporting and adherence to ethical journalistic priciples. (I know, a bit of an oxymoron these days). I believe they are still two of the most respected papers out there. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 09:54 AM	#5
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	This line of discussion, and scaeagles mention of Jayson Blair (the NY Times guy) makes me think of this column from the Chicago Tribune. It's nothing earth shattering, but the assistant city editor mentioned is my cousin. I thought it was pretty cool that his name was brought up as a counterpoint to one of the worst demonstartions of lack of journalistic integrity. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 11:18 AM	#6
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I, for one, do not trust our media. In fact, I am more likely to rely on BBC for my info, but even then I'm not 100% confident with it. It's sad when a chunk of the country looks to blogs for their news. They should be able to believe what's printed. I also think that the Bush administration controls our media. I find it ironic that the Bush administration can blast Newsweek for relying on one unreliable source when Bush did the same thing to justify his war in Iraq. (From Thinkprogress.org) McClellan’s issue with the Newsweek story was that it was “based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report.” Here's a quote from 4/05/04: QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never every interviewed? MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked at as part of a broad review by the independent commission that the President appointed… But it’s important that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that with what we believed prior to going into Iraq. What was that bible verse about casting the first stone? Or the one about a plank in your eye... No one in this administration should be blaming anyone for making mistakes... QUESTION: He’s the president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That’s his fault, isn’t it? MCCLELLAN: No. [White House Press Briefing, 7/17/03] Oh, right. They don't make mistakes. Yes, the whole Muslim community hates us because of Newsweek... Yeah....
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 11:37 AM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	GC, if the media is controlled by the Bush administration, who controlled it before his administration? Is it a new phenomena? if they do control the media, how then does this story get published? Are you suggesting outlets such as the NY Times are friendly to Bush and his administration? I see so much negative press about the Bush administration out there (whether deserved or not isn't my point) that I cannot bring myself to believe that the media is being controlled by the Bush administration. I would suppose the difference in going to war in Iraq and the Newsweek story, at least to me, is that instead of one unnamed source, the intelligence services of the UK, Russia, and Egypt all told us the same thing that the CIA believed regarding WMD. But again, that isn't the point. The Muslim community hated us before the Newsweek story, most certainly. They hated us before 9/11 and before Bush was elected. What this story does, however, is give propaganda to extremists who believe the retraction is government control of the media. It is fuel for the fire that has long been burning and, sadly, will continue to burn for a long time.
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 12:05 PM	#9
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	The question in my mind is.... Why did this unnamed source not dispute Newsweek's version of events before the story went to press? There seems to be no question that Newsweek went to this source while still in the process of putting this story together. Why is Newsweek protecting this unnamed source who has subsequently hung them out to dry?
	Submit to Quotes

05-17-2005, 12:44 PM	#10
Sheila Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 148	One of the chief editors of Newsweek was on Nightline last night. Man, they put him through the wringer. Although he finally (after much prompting), admitted Newsweek was wrong, his principle justification was this: They had taken the article to the White House Administration for confirmation. Because the administration had only commented on a different section of the story, and not the section about the Koran, Newsweek took that as "confirmation" of the truth of the Koran story, thus they were basically in the clear to publish an incendiary anecdote. Today, I heard on the radio that no one would be fired at Newsweek for what happened.
	Submit to Quotes