Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, the media does at times serve as a straight 'transmitter' of information and it shouldn't. HOWEVER - and this is something that people tend to forget, if they ever stopped to think about it - newspapers, and tv broadcasts - are "the first rough draft of history." They are NOT 100% accurate - they are as accurate as the very human beings who prepare them can make them in virtually no time. When is the last time that anyone on this list who isn't a daily journalist has been told a 2 in the afternoon that he or she has to gather facts about an event that just occurred, or is told to digest a 500 page report and get people to comment on it - and write 1000 to 1500 coherent, flowing, accurate, informative words about the event or report by 6 p.m.? Try it some time. And then stop to marvel at how much the 'media' gets right, as opposed to what it gets wrong. I've been dipping in and out of a new New York Times book that is a compilation of all the Times JFK assassination coverage from the four days around the assassination. Tom Wicker's lede piece from the first day's paper is incredibly stiff and creaky. But then consider that it runs approximately 4000! words, and was 'written' in his head as he stood in a phone booth and dictated it to the desk - a 4000 word story about the assassination of the President, an event that occurred at about 1 p.m. Eastern time, and a story that includes the shooting, the race to the hospital, events at the hospital, the swearing in of the new President, the flight back to D.C., etc. etc. And all of this was reported and written in a period of about five hours - by someone who was in Dallas at the time and had to have been traumatized by the events. Yes, The Media screws up. Yes, The Media often falls down on the job. But when all is said and done - thank God for the media. Imagine what the Bush Admininstration would be doing if there were no media. I believe it was Jefferson who wrote that he would rather have no government than no newspapers. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tarek Charara Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:36 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] BD's Point and Free Speech De B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net>, le jeudi 13 novembre 2003 à 09:53 GMT : >Marc, the role of the press it not to "protest," but to report. B.D., the press also "transmits" information that was not verified by their staff. Aren't you tired of the crap that is given by government officials who request to remain anonymous. The ratio of information that comes from "anonymous" vs. verified information must be 70 to 30. I'm guessing, of course. When I read the NYT or Time Magazine, I sometimes feel that the information given is more or less biased. Here (in France) the situation is that articles can be taken out of a magazine because an advertiser does not agree with it. I've seen it happen. I've heard (this is a documentalist friend at a major TV station reporting) that information has been strongly altered to suit management's political views. Freedom of press? Yes, the press is free to inform, but that doesn't mean that the information is correct or unbiased or even true. Tarek Tarek Charara - ------------- site: http://www.pix-that-stimulate.com expo: http://www.orients-unis.net - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html