29 November 2006

Two Rules to Add Media Transparency

Starting with Flopping Aces and then spreading to many, many other sites and instances, we have seen the Associated Press standing accused of not only reporting that is not factually based but is wholly fictitious. Strangely enough, this is not news to me! In point of fact I have been pointing out the lack of actually putting in context and accountability into 'news' reporting for quite some time going back with my analysis of the 'fauxtography' scandals and moving forward to misreporting and misrepresentation of actual, factual numbers in ways that they cannot be reported by such luminaries as the Washington Post.

I have covered a number of topics on this, such as: global warming, who actually 'made Saddam' and supported him and the actual facts that Congress used to support a war in Iraq, 'sanctuary cities' and the meaning of secession, what a science is or is not and why it matters, 'guest workers' and why they aren't needed, the entire lack of context for NOLA and why it is a fool thing to 'rebuild', Generals with sour grapes making poor whine, what the Preamble of the Constitution actually means in context of that document, what the upcoming disasters are that we cannot stop, the NYT was formed to counter 'yellow journalism' and now is its own shade of 'yellow', using real definitions to actually define what is going on in Iraq, looking at negative numbers out of context rendering them meaningless as social indicators, the media not even *questioning* what it takes to make...well... media, what some have called my call to a 'code of photojournalistic ethics', examining the depth it takes to properly understand how 'fauxtography' and false scenes happen and identify them, why the media reaction to 'fauxtography' is disingenuous, the Washington Post unable to even understand the Federal budget and so making their reporting meaningless, the devaluation by the Media of protests so that it is now mere street theater, why 'armed political parties' are not legitimate, the Washington Post proving that it has no investigative reporters left and is mere partisan attack rag, the lack of real 'police blotter reporting' in Iraq and why that we see is biased, if the media wants to create fictitious news then can we hold them to the standards of fictitious reporters?, how the individual Editor & Publisher put up to respond is flawed BEYOND his admitted creation of past news items, the hard disconnect between any of the 'Elites' and the common man, the entire lack of context on the length of wars, the lack of any context on what running from wars does, zero reporting or analysis of the end-game of al Qaeda, terrorism is illegitimate war *not* civil crime, looking at those things known as 'events' in a time sequence to determine what the strategy in Iraq actually is, how it appears that no one in the Media (not even its grey-headed retired military folks) can address what it takes to make an Army, 'Realpolitik' and how it is out to kill us if we don't let it go, and then the huge summary meme spanking for all of the folks who needed it on 'post-Warism'.

And all of that summed up by the lack of division between analysis, news, the 'story' and facts by the Media. You may have guessed that I have been at this for a bit, no? The complete lack of context in reporting anything, from science to warfare, has so corroded the entire endeavor of reporting that it is no longer trustworthy. When I can go into three or four areas of knowledge that I have some minimal depth in and find that news organizations get it wrong on each of them, and then I further review other analyses based on that faulty news reporting, I come to the conclusion that the overall effort to remove context and obscure bias is intentional so as to limit individuals to certain, predetermined and preset conclusions.

And the very puzzling thing is that it does not take a major effort to remove such bias nor to provide transparency.

Now, here is the dead-simple way to ensure that when someone of military or police rank is quoted, that the media can ensure that they are absolutely, positively transparent in that!

I give this out for FREE!

Give the individual's unit or precinct along with their rank.
Yes, it is just that simple.

For the print media that is a mere handful of letters. For the audio and video it is a second or so of airtime.

You want to be forthright and gain MY trust as a reader?

Then do that very thing so that I know who I can contact to do this little thing known as "verify your source".

For the still and motion imagery reporting media, there is one simple thing you can do to be transparent and show integrity, both the news organizations and photojournalists:
Open up your archives to original and edited work.
I now regularly junk 'anonymous' sources into the trash along with any reporting on same or using such as a sole, primary or confirmatory source. I do not even bother reading it because it is using individuals who refuse to be held accountable for their words and trying to influence the course of the Nation in that doing.

The only way it is 'legit' is on any reporting on people so absolutely, positively threatened with immediate or long-term death to themselves or their family that their names are held in abeyance. Then I expect two or more other sources to confirm what was said so that I know this is not a 'hit piece' or 'personal vendetta reporting'.

The AP had previously joined my list of news organizations that I do NOT trust for any news and require 2, independent confirmatory sources, to verify anything they assert: AFP, AP, New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, and the entirety of the television news organizations.

I really am starting to prefer the fictional reporters as they cared more about informing their readers than in putting forth their own bias.

No comments: