NATIONAL JOURNAL: Real Or Fake?
The key question that is not asked by the general public. We tend to believe that which we see. Changing the context and making the story somewhere else is entirely possible. Would you know the difference between a street scene in Afghanistan or Pakistan? I wouldn't.
The news is a business like any other. They have pressure to be first, not pressure to be right. There's an old movie called "Absence of Malice" which is as poignant today as it was when it debuted.
In it, they are in danger of being scooped by a rival paper. The editor is reluctant to run the story because it's too shakey. The report vows to shore up the sourcing after the story has run so long as they don't get scooped. The editor asks, "What if it's wrong?" The reporter gives a shrug and says, they run a retraction. The retraction absolves all. It washes away the sin of erroneous reporting. Never mind the damage done and the lives ruined. All that matters is who was first.
Now, more than ever, the Army of Davids is putting that in the past. The MSM doesn't control the conversation anymore and "we can fact check your ass." You can't get away with the sloppy Ken Brockman style reporting. There are too many hacks like me that can reach the entire planet for free. My audience is limited only by my abilities. (If you've seen my Sitemeter reports you know how depressing that last statement is)
Just another reason to read everything with a skeptical eye.
The key question that is not asked by the general public. We tend to believe that which we see. Changing the context and making the story somewhere else is entirely possible. Would you know the difference between a street scene in Afghanistan or Pakistan? I wouldn't.
The news is a business like any other. They have pressure to be first, not pressure to be right. There's an old movie called "Absence of Malice" which is as poignant today as it was when it debuted.
In it, they are in danger of being scooped by a rival paper. The editor is reluctant to run the story because it's too shakey. The report vows to shore up the sourcing after the story has run so long as they don't get scooped. The editor asks, "What if it's wrong?" The reporter gives a shrug and says, they run a retraction. The retraction absolves all. It washes away the sin of erroneous reporting. Never mind the damage done and the lives ruined. All that matters is who was first.
Now, more than ever, the Army of Davids is putting that in the past. The MSM doesn't control the conversation anymore and "we can fact check your ass." You can't get away with the sloppy Ken Brockman style reporting. There are too many hacks like me that can reach the entire planet for free. My audience is limited only by my abilities. (If you've seen my Sitemeter reports you know how depressing that last statement is)
Just another reason to read everything with a skeptical eye.
Comments