And in the news today...

[Mikkel]

...food for thought.

When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he was testing how our globalised, increasingly internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

[marioc]

heh you have to wonder how much of that really goes on

[Mikkel]

Yes, I have by now stopped expecting thorough and objective journalism - as a result I never take anything in the news at facevalue... but I can't help wonder how many people actually do.

[Skyryder]

I think it comes down to ones attitude. I have the philosophy that all I meet are my friends. This may sound contrite but unless someone does something to me that is objectionable then I have no reason to think that they are not my friend. This is also true of what people tell by way of converstion. Unless I have some suspicion or knowledge that what is told to me is untrue then I have no reason not to disbleive them.

Much the same can be said of Wikopedia. It's an online encyclopedia contributed by the 'users.' Unless I have specific knowledge of information that is incorrect then I tend to accept Wiki on face value. This does not mean to say that I hold Wki in the same esteem as Britannica, that would be folly.

Much the same can be said for the news. We might not take it all at face value but there comes a point where what we read we accept that there may be some truth.


At the end of the day it comes down to our own experiance of credibility and the integrity of the source. Untill such time that becomes suspect or I know different then I geneally accept 'news' as being correctly reported.


Skyryder

[Mikkel]

I think it comes down to ones attitude. I have the philosophy that all I meet are my friends. This may sound contrite but unless someone does something to me that is objectionable then I have no reason to think that they are not my friend. This is also true of what people tell by way of converstion. Unless I have some suspicion or knowledge that what is told to me is untrue then I have no reason not to disbleive them.

Much the same can be said of Wikopedia. It's an online encyclopedia contributed by the 'users.' Unless I have specific knowledge of information that is incorrect then I tend to accept Wiki on face value. This does not mean to say that I hold Wki in the same esteem as Britannica, that would be folly.

Much the same can be said for the news. We might not take it all at face value but there comes a point where what we read we accept that there may be some truth.


At the end of the day it comes down to our own experiance of credibility and the integrity of the source. Untill such time that becomes suspect or I know different then I geneally accept 'news' as being correctly reported.


Skyryder

As far as people go I'm with you. When it comes to the news I'm a bit more skeptical - after all someone is doing it as their job, and unless they are both enjoy their job and are competent at it I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.

As for wikipedia - it is nothing more than a very handy compilation of information. However, you should never ever trust any fact on Wikipedia more than you'd trust the references supporting it. No reference equals no factual value.
Bearing that in mind Wikipedia is a great resource. After all most people who write wikipedia entries are both knowledgeable and enthusiatic about the subject. Add to this an on-going peer-review process (if you stumble across something that is factually incorrect on Wikipedia you should notify the moderators or correct it yourself - if you are able that is)...

The issue in the article has nothing to do with Wikipedia and all to do with not doing your homework before presenting something as fact. And then not having the balls to face up and admit you fucked up once it comes out that you made a mistake. Quite simply despicable.

[Swoop]

Yes, I have by now stopped expecting thorough and objective journalism - as a result I never take anything in the news at facevalue...

It was suggested on the radio this week (by a caller) that "ONE NEWS" should really be renamed "ONE RUMOURS".
Something to do with the reporting of the Napier incident...

[Winston001]

I think it comes down to ones attitude. I have the philosophy that all I meet are my friends. This may sound contrite but unless someone does something to me that is objectionable then I have no reason to think that they are not my friend. This is also true of what people tell by way of converstion. Unless I have some suspicion or knowledge that what is told to me is untrue then I have no reason not to disbleive them.

Nicely said and a great attitude. I too believe in respecting everyone else unless they give me reason to withdraw that respect. I once heard a guy on talkback say he didn't respect anyone - busdriver, teacher, checkout chick - until they earned his respect. Sadly that attitude is widespread.

Much the same can be said of Wikipedia. It's an online encyclopedia contributed by the 'users.' Unless I have specific knowledge of information that is incorrect then I tend to accept Wiki on face value. This does not mean to say that I hold Wki in the same esteem as Britannica, that would be folly.

I generally trust Wikipedia as an accurate overview. If more detail is known, keep searching, works for me.

Much the same can be said for the news. We might not take it all at face value but there comes a point where what we read we accept that there may be some truth.


At the end of the day it comes down to our own experience of credibility and the integrity of the source. Untill such time that becomes suspect or I know different then I geneally accept 'news' as being correctly reported.

Here we must differ. Modern news reporting is driven by the economics of tv and print media (with their online addons). It has to be instant to beat competitors, must have photos or video, and have a hook ie. some exaggerated element which grabs our attention. Plus it must be short. The casualty is accuracy.

I don't blame journalists themselves - there are fewer and fewer of them to cover news and they are under high pressure.

[Bass]

I think it comes down to ones attitude.

Much the same can be said for the news. We might not take it all at face value but there comes a point where what we read we accept that there may be some truth.


Skyryder

I have some personal experience with journalism.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no other group within our society that is quite so skilled at distorting the truth without actually telling a lie.

[Edbear]

I have some personal experience with journalism.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no other group within our society that is quite so skilled at distorting the truth without actually telling a lie.

Interesting post and you're probably right. Whenever money becomes the important factor morals take a back seat. The media is fiercely competitive and ratings, ie: money, driven. Therefore every news item must be presented to capture the audience and any quasi-legal means is employed to that effect.

They push the boundaries of misrepresentation and skewed truth to the absolute limit and are prepared, read budgeted, to face legal action if necessary.

Me? Cynical...?

[Winston001]

Interesting post and you're probably right. Whenever money becomes the important factor morals take a back seat. The media is fiercely competitive and ratings, ie: money, driven. Therefore every news item must be presented to capture the audience and any quasi-legal means is employed to that effect.

They push the boundaries of misrepresentation and skewed truth to the absolute limit and are prepared, read budgeted, to face legal action if necessary.

Mmmmm......but haven't journalists always been under the hammer to produce good stories for their employers? Before there were newspapers, pamphlets were printed and sold or given away by enthusiastic writers, at their own cost.

Eventually papers developed which made a profit and the modern concept of broadcast news was born. To sell a paper, the owner needed fresh interesting stories.

I think the difference today is the speed of communication - we can literally know about an event as it happens. So the pressure to produce stories with an angle, a beatup (reporter jargon) is immense. Accuracy and truth go out the window.

Plus the media are bleeding advertising revenue. Its getting harder and harder to make a buck = less news resources, fewer reporters, more demand for fast news bites - with pictures.

[Brownstoo]

I have some personal experience with journalism.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no other group within our society that is quite so skilled at distorting the truth without actually telling a lie.

I agree , although politicians are pretty good too... Although there's a lot more actual lying there.
Also, if people then perceive this distortion as meaning something other than the truth then they may as well have lied. So journalists are actually liars.

Mmmmm......but haven't journalists always been under the hammer to produce good stories for their employers? Before there were newspapers, pamphlets were printed and sold or given away by enthusiastic writers, at their own cost.

Yeah, it's not the journalists fault that they're liars. They're only responding to incentives (like rational people always do), and their employers place more value on a juicy story (with pictures!) than on getting the truth through. And their employers only place more value on juiciness, because the general public value juiciness over the cold hard truth. People, as a group, are fucking stupid when you think about it.
And that's why I hate people...

[davebullet]

The Journalism we see has largely been screened by people who want to profit from it (increase ratings, paper sales blah blah blah) or people who want fame or notoriety. What is left is a truth that is often just perception. Which begs the question: Is there an absolute truth? The power of "group think" springs to mind.