Well, you must remember, Mark, as Cheyenne points out, that journalistic reports of today will be tomorrow's history. You say that the tools don't matter, but they do. An entire report can be slanted by claiming that an enemy used gunships against a civilian target, when it might just have been a transport. Also, incorrect footage (like showing Afghanistan and claiming it was Sri Lanka) are more than just details.
Also, accuracy helps credibility. Someone who can't get one detail right, might get another wrong too. Would you forgive a journalist who reported a bacteria as a virus? To some, that's just an insignificant detail.
Spare Parts
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Accuracy in the News Media
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 10:49 AM UTC
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 11:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, you must remember, Mark, as Cheyenne points out, that journalistic reports of today will be tomorrow's history. You say that the tools don't matter, but they do. An entire report can be slanted by claiming that an enemy used gunships against a civilian target, when it might just have been a transport. Also, incorrect footage (like showing Afghanistan and claiming it was Sri Lanka) are more than just details.
Also, accuracy helps credibility. Someone who can't get one detail right, might get another wrong too. Would you forgive a journalist who reported a bacteria as a virus? To some, that's just an insignificant detail.
Great. Give me a precedent where mis-identifying an armoured vehicle caused grievous historical harm?
Name me an incident where a transport helicopter attacked anything (if something was attacked by a helicopter is not that helicopter by definition armed?).
It is simply too much to expect that Joe Average Reporter has to be an expert on the all of the thousands of pieces of military hardware that they might encounter in the course of doing their job and with absolute precision identify it, live, while under hostile fire!
The military experts don't even get it right half the time. Ever watch the History or Military channels? About 90% of the military themed programming on those networks is done by the same company. They have months, not minutes to do research with fact checkers and editors overseeing it all, just so they get it right. Since it is all they do for a living you would think they would get it right all the time, yes? And yet....
PS
Who (besides you apparently) regards the difference between a bacteria and a virus as insignificant?
Zacman
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 11:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
. An entire report can be slanted by claiming that an enemy used gunships against a civilian target, when it might just have been a transport. .
.
In that example is the "civilian target" meant to shot by the "Transport", if so it became a "Gunship"!
exer
Member Since: November 27, 2004
entire network: 6,048 Posts
KitMaker Network: 845 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 01:53 PM UTC
[quote]that journalistic reports of today will be tomorrow's history[/quote ]
God help us all if future historians use Fox news as their primary source of recorded history
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 04:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Great. Give me a precedent where mis-identifying an armoured vehicle caused grievous historical harm?
Depends what you mean by 'grevious'. But here's an example. A nation might use wheeled armoured vehicles in a riot situation (like in N Ireland), and these could well be police vehicles, but if a reporter calls the vehicles 'tanks' in a report, it gives the impression that unnecessary force is being used or that the regular army is being used. There are many other examples.
Quoted Text
Name me an incident where a transport helicopter attacked anything (if something was attacked by a helicopter is not that helicopter by definition armed?).
When I was in the Army and we were being transported by helicopter (slicks or transports), the door gunners would engage threats. An armed helicopter is an armed helicopter. A gunship is a dedicated attack helicopter. I thought you'd know the difference. You're not a reporter by any chance? :-)
Quoted Text
It is simply too much to expect that Joe Average Reporter has to be an expert on the all of the thousands of pieces of military hardware that they might encounter in the course of doing their job and with absolute precision identify it, live, while under hostile fire!
I didn't say he had to be an expert on thousands of pieces of equipment. But I'd expect him to know the difference between a tank and an armoured car, just as I'd expect him to know whether a whale is a fish or mammal. And we were not just talking about electronic media. If you look at the examples I originally gave, they're all mistakes made in newspapers (except for the wrong BBC footage). Most journalists are rarely under fire (though they'd like us to think so), and newspaper reporters never are when typing their articles (and their editors aren't either).
Quoted Text
The military experts don't even get it right half the time. Ever watch the History or Military channels? About 90% of the military themed programming on those networks is done by the same company. They have months, not minutes to do research with fact checkers and editors overseeing it all, just so they get it right. Since it is all they do for a living you would think they would get it right all the time, yes? And yet....
True. I already pointed that out, Mark.
Quoted Text
PSWho (besides you apparently) regards the difference between a bacteria and a virus as insignificant?
Did I say I thought so? But who (besides you apparently) regards the difference between a tank and an armoured car insignificant? If you've seen either in combat, you'll know they're as different from each other as a virus is to bacteria.
Finally, Mark, you seem to be taking this all as a personal attack on yourself, and you sound very defensive and angry. Chill out. There's no reason to get offensive. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 05:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
There's no reason to get offensive. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Sound advice for everyone in this thread.
Shaun
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 05:49 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Finally, Mark, you seem to be taking this all as a personal attack on yourself, and you sound very defensive and angry.
I am not in the slightest.
I'm still trying to figure out if there is a real problem here though. The actual examples cited don't come anywhere near the hypothetical errors you are basing your argument on.
In other words, is this really that big a deal? Is the problem so great as some make it out to be.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 07:11 PM UTC
Quoted Text
In other words, is this really that big a deal? Is the problem so great as some make it out to be.
Hard to say. Can the news media change public opinion? If the answer is yes, then they have a responsibility to being factually correct. Either way, I think this thread was started so that we could all have a chuckle.
And I'm not basing my argument on hypothetical errors, but on real ones. All three examples in my original post are real ones, and all three created false impressions.
Hollowpoint
Member Since: January 24, 2002
entire network: 2,748 Posts
KitMaker Network: 841 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 09:42 PM UTC
As a member of the media and a member of U.S. Army public affairs (the folks who deal with the civilian media), I have read this thread with interest. Let me throw a few more logs on the fire:
Most journalists are generalists. They know a little bit about a lot and not a lot about any one thing in particular. The title "Defense correspondent" means that's his beat this week -- next week he may be covering business news or giving the farm report.
A reporter is only as good as his sources. If he's asking questions and no one on the scene (i.e., the military leaders on the scene) wants to answer him or help him understand, he's going to wing it and get it all screwed up. The best reporters are the ones who have the best sources.
Not all military people know everything about the military. When I prep a military source for an interview with a civilian reporter, I advise him or her to "stay in you lane," meaning to talk about what you know about. A finance officer should not be talking about infantry tactics. An engineer shouldn't comment on the handling of detainees. And my pet peeve (one that happpens all the time): people in the Pentagon shouldn't be talking with any authority about what's going on in the field halfway around the world. Most of them don't even know what's going on across the hall ...
AND, about that M109 being "a tank." I could take 100 random U.S. service members and show them a pic of an M109 and ask them what it is. Unless they are artillerymen or tankers (or were trained by me), I'll wager that 9 out of 10 will say it's a tank and most also would not be able to tell with any authority whether it is "friend" or "foe." Don't believe me? Vist the "Images" section on DefenseLink and read some of the photo captions.
I could stand on this soapbox for hours, but I won't.
In closing, I just have to comment on this statement;
Hogwash. They screwed it up, too. And they were subject to military censorship and revision, meaning much of what the public read was bald-faced propaganda.
The best thing I've read in this thread is the advice to get your news from more than one source. -- then do your own research and form your own opinion.
Most journalists are generalists. They know a little bit about a lot and not a lot about any one thing in particular. The title "Defense correspondent" means that's his beat this week -- next week he may be covering business news or giving the farm report.
A reporter is only as good as his sources. If he's asking questions and no one on the scene (i.e., the military leaders on the scene) wants to answer him or help him understand, he's going to wing it and get it all screwed up. The best reporters are the ones who have the best sources.
Not all military people know everything about the military. When I prep a military source for an interview with a civilian reporter, I advise him or her to "stay in you lane," meaning to talk about what you know about. A finance officer should not be talking about infantry tactics. An engineer shouldn't comment on the handling of detainees. And my pet peeve (one that happpens all the time): people in the Pentagon shouldn't be talking with any authority about what's going on in the field halfway around the world. Most of them don't even know what's going on across the hall ...
AND, about that M109 being "a tank." I could take 100 random U.S. service members and show them a pic of an M109 and ask them what it is. Unless they are artillerymen or tankers (or were trained by me), I'll wager that 9 out of 10 will say it's a tank and most also would not be able to tell with any authority whether it is "friend" or "foe." Don't believe me? Vist the "Images" section on DefenseLink and read some of the photo captions.
I could stand on this soapbox for hours, but I won't.
In closing, I just have to comment on this statement;
Quoted Text
If the media existing today - was in place during WWII - most of us would speaking German and the rest Japanese.
Hogwash. They screwed it up, too. And they were subject to military censorship and revision, meaning much of what the public read was bald-faced propaganda.
The best thing I've read in this thread is the advice to get your news from more than one source. -- then do your own research and form your own opinion.
Henk
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 10:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Great. Give me a precedent where mis-identifying an armoured vehicle caused grievous historical harm?
Perhaps not so much 'grevious', but we all know the resulting misconceptions. During WW II the Panther and Tiger tanks took on mythical proportions amongst the Allied troops, and the (combat)reports of Tigers attacking positions and routing the defenders are numerous. In effect any tracked (and often wheeled) vehicle with a gun turret would have been liable to be credited as a Tiger, esspecialy to explain a retreat. However, by cross referencing many of the reports, it has been shown that the fabeled Tiger or King Tiger could not have attacked those positions at the time. Never the less, for decades the concensus was that the Germans nearly turned the war with their vast numbers of superior tanks...
I for one don't pay much attention to TV news anymore, as most of it is driven by viewing figures, which means they will only report items, and in such a style, that are sure to pull in the viewers. Blood and gossip, not facts.
Cheers
Henk
cheyenne
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 04:47 AM UTC
Spooky6 - Amen.
Sorry, forgot to read page 2, Henk, Bob, - Amen.
Always check and double check everything, according to Fitz, if some things don't need to be that accurate, than everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
As I said before, todays news is tommorrows history and if it's a little off the day after, it's waaaayyy off 20 - 30 yrs. later. I just can't get all excited over some bit of news unless it's been confirmed by multiple sources and even then keep an open mind. As far as getting small stuff incorrect and I notice it, it just makes me not have much credibility for that person/reporter. However one [ newsperson ] who admits not knowing something and states so rather than " wing it to fill space and appear knowlegable [ see I can't spell ] I will listen to because I get the feeling he's not shoving sand up my butt.
Sherlock Holmes - " Once you've eliminated all the probables and possibles, whatever is left is your answer " - may sound corny but oh well.
I don't think anyone here is trying to crank the other up, it's just how some people like to get thier information - as accurate as possible.
Cheyenne
Sorry, forgot to read page 2, Henk, Bob, - Amen.
Always check and double check everything, according to Fitz, if some things don't need to be that accurate, than everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
As I said before, todays news is tommorrows history and if it's a little off the day after, it's waaaayyy off 20 - 30 yrs. later. I just can't get all excited over some bit of news unless it's been confirmed by multiple sources and even then keep an open mind. As far as getting small stuff incorrect and I notice it, it just makes me not have much credibility for that person/reporter. However one [ newsperson ] who admits not knowing something and states so rather than " wing it to fill space and appear knowlegable [ see I can't spell ] I will listen to because I get the feeling he's not shoving sand up my butt.
Sherlock Holmes - " Once you've eliminated all the probables and possibles, whatever is left is your answer " - may sound corny but oh well.
I don't think anyone here is trying to crank the other up, it's just how some people like to get thier information - as accurate as possible.
Cheyenne
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 05:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Spooky6 - Amen.
Sorry, forgot to read page 2, Henk, Bob, - Amen.
Always check and double check everything, according to Fitz, if some things don't need to be that accurate, than everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
If some reporter calls a weapon system the “M109 Howitzer cannon gun” I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, nor is it going to change history for the better or worse. I'm talking about being reasonable and rational, not being a nitpicky know-it-all.
cheyenne
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 05:35 AM UTC
whatever, you win
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:11 PM UTC
Fionuala Sweeney, CNN anchor in Haifa, Israel:
Any guesses on whether she knows if a gunship is a surface vessel or an aircraft? :-)
Quoted Text
We have just heard that an Israeli gunship has been shot down off the coast of Lebanon, or at least attacked, and possibly sunk.
Any guesses on whether she knows if a gunship is a surface vessel or an aircraft? :-)
markm
Member Since: September 11, 2005
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 590 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Fionuala Sweeney, CNN anchor in Haifa, Israel:
Quoted TextWe have just heard that an Israeli gunship has been shot down off the coast of Lebanon, or at least attacked, and possibly sunk.
Any guesses on whether she knows if a gunship is a surface vessel or an aircraft? :-)
Since it is obvious that she has no idea, she is covering all bases
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
grimreaper
Member Since: April 11, 2005
entire network: 417 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2006 - 01:32 AM UTC
Quote:
We have just heard that an Israeli gunship has been shot down off the coast of Lebanon, or at least attacked, and possibly sunk.
Lets give Fionuala some credit here:
Israeli gunship has been shot down
She knows it's military ....
shot down or at least attacked
She knows it was airborne military...
possibly sunk
She knows that planes or helicopters don't float for long....
All in in all I think she got it right! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Gary
We have just heard that an Israeli gunship has been shot down off the coast of Lebanon, or at least attacked, and possibly sunk.
Lets give Fionuala some credit here:
Israeli gunship has been shot down
She knows it's military ....
shot down or at least attacked
She knows it was airborne military...
possibly sunk
She knows that planes or helicopters don't float for long....
All in in all I think she got it right! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Gary
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.