The slippery matter of news credibility
Published February 12, 2015
Editorial by Burlington Times-News, February 11, 2015.
TV news has been debated, scrutinized and lambasted by those in the print side of the media business for decades. Concerns about the slide by TV reporters from news gathering and reading into simple entertainment were widely discussed even in the days when the now legendary Edward R. Murrow reported from London while the city was under siege by Nazi bombers. Later, it was darkly satirized by the extraordinary film “Network” and writer Paddy Chayefsky’s singeing script about an anchorman ultimately assassinated for low ratings.
So the hand-wringing over the well-reported and more recently lampooned “misremembering” by NBC News anchor Brian Williams continues a tradition of important questions about the role of TV news in American culture. How credible are the once formidable major networks at providing news, especially when balanced against the largely questionable reporting seen via many cable outlets where consumers can shop for the stories they wish to hear or see — whether those stories are accurate or not?
That print and online reporting is also largely under scrutiny these days just adds another dimension to what’s one of the most important stories in our society. Namely: Whom do you trust? Perhaps more directly: Whom can you trust?
It’s an interesting question, and far more than a parlor game for political partisans or ideologues on the left and right who are drawn to news outlets that fit their world views while offering knee-jerk and spasmodic rejection of whatever doesn’t match those beliefs. It’s essentially created a fractured news market in which the truth, as the old TV show “The X-Files” once said, is out there.
But where, exactly?
Into this mess, and propelled exponentially by social media, lurched Williams, one of the most popular and likable broadcasters of recent vintage. He’s the $10 million-a-year face of NBC News and a one-man franchise whose career has also veered into humorous appearances on late-night talk shows and NBC’s prime-time situation comedies. NBC suspended its anchorman and managing editor for six months with pay — a financial loss of $5 million for Williams, a major donor to Elon University — because he embellished a story that occurred while he was working in Iraq in 2003. After initially correctly reporting the story of a helicopter group being fired upon, the story evolved over the years into a heroic tale of his own helicopter being struck by an Iraqi grenade launcher. Once the revised story was questioned by military veterans who were there, Williams apologized.
Then, however, it became a matter of credibility. Questions began to surface about potential misstatements or inaccuracies in other stories reported by Williams, including his award-winning work from New Orleans about Hurricane Katrina. Williams took a voluntary leave from the anchor desk while NBC launched an in-house investigation. Meanwhile, ratings for the nightly news took a sharp tumble.
And perhaps more damaging, Williams became fodder for late-night talk show jokes and endless parodies online. According to The Associated Press, in less than a week, Williams dropped from among the top 25 most trustworthy Americans to the area of the survey where reality TV stars normally reside.
Ouch.
TV news has devolved over the past three decades. When Walter Cronkite used to sign off by saying, “That’s the way it is,” there was some reason to believe him. It’s not that way anymore.
The Williams affair may be the nadir for major network news, a point at which all can build upon. The suspension of Williams by NBC is a move in the right direction. A network that cares about its credibility as a news organization could and should take action to protect that perception.
In the end, it may help separate real news reporting agencies from the sham organizations offering just posturing and opinion.
http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/our-opinion/the-slippery-matter-of-news-credibility-1.436596
February 12, 2015 at 10:46 am
Norm Kelly says:
While it may be true that media outlets tend to spin stories toward a certain direction, this seems worst of all with the leftist agenda. Some of us know not to trust NBC in any of it's various forms. Many in the network media business gave up on news long ago and now simply tell stories that support either their agenda or the agenda of their leftist ally pol.
Too many news outlets are no longer news outlets but simply entertainment. Their stories are not complete; if it doesn't fit their agenda it doesn't run. Those of us in Wake County area are stuck with the misleading, not-quite-the-full-story Noise and Disturber. They have earned their name by being so completely biased in their coverage. It seems that in recent years, perhaps since the turn of the century, the N&D doesn't even try to hide the fact that they are an ally of the leftist pols. When it's time to endorse candidates for office, they either endorse the leftist candidate or they choose not to endorse anyone. Have they endorsed more than 1 Republican candidate since 2000? Have they run stories about the ignorance of the voting population, those who choose to vote? Have they repeated stories about the 'anarchists', as the ever senile Harry refers to conservatives? Without question, without explanation of what constitutes an anarchist, or what conservatives/Republicans are actually calling for, media outlets such as the N&D simply carry the leftist line that those of us who believe in the central planners staying within the limits of the US Constitution, balancing the central planner budget, and various other ways to keep the central planners out of daily life, are trying to destroy the nation. Without question, media outlets such as the N&D simply carry the rants of racists such as the Rev 'buffet slayer' Barber who claim that EVERYTHING done by Republicans/conservatives is based on our racist tendencies, our desire to hold down blacks en masse, and our complete disregard for 'the poor'. There's no question about how the state can afford to continue to borrow money from the central planners to continue to extend unemployment benefits without a repayment plan, no question about whether government subsistence payments stir the economy or simply punish producers, so long as a leftist makes a statement, these media outlets carry it because it supports their agenda.
There is merit in both sides of any story. There is more merit in freedom than central planner control. There is more merit in local control versus central planner authority. Yet, media outlets no longer recognize that the LAW of the US restricts the central planners, prevents central planners from interfering in state decisions, and wants to concentrate power in the central planners. Right in line with the agenda of the leftist pols, such as Nancy, senile Harry, and the unqualified community organizer occupant! Instead of media outlets such as the N&D telling us that this administration is touting how people are 'accepting' socialized medicine, how about they tell the whole story. People are afraid of what the central planners will do to them if they don't accept control by the central planners. People have witnessed what central planners do to people who don't conform. Yet this is NOT part of the leftist agenda and therefore NOT a part of the story told by media outlets. Need an example of telling only part of the story, the part that fits the leftist agenda. Look at the coverage of the coal ash spill.
News would be nice. Having local news outlets start their shows at 4pm and continue til 630 pm, requiring them to somehow fill 2.5 hours with LOCAL news is an impossible task. They will repeat themselves often. And they will start to get stories wrong. And they will start to fall more in line with the likes of NBC and CNN who simply tell stories and no longer report news. These media outlets gave up on news and truth years ago because they had time to fill with nothing useful to say. So they started making up stuff. Will this happen now that local media outlets want to extend their shows? Is there a limit to how many hours local media outlets can be on the air? Yes. I suspect their new 2.5 hour plan has surpassed their abilities.
February 12, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Kathy Barker says:
In the sixth paragraph, did you mean without pay?
