Bluegoat Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) I don't know if anyone here has been following the events in the Omar Kadhr case recently - I am guessing it would not see a lot of coverage in the US. To sum it up, after being detained by the US for many years as a terrorist, even when he was a minor, he sued the Canadian government on a charter of rights basis, essentially saying they didn't look out for him as a citizen. The courts have ruled clearly in his favour, but up until now they have tried to avoid this and appealed. Just this past week, when it became clear that they would lose again, they settled, for about $10million. He lawyers will take about half of that. But it has really got me thinking about how news coverage works. In my city, there was a protest by a group of veterans about this - the implication was that they were somehow indicative of the "veteran view" though they are basically a social club. Following the criticism of the leader of our opposition, they claim that the ruling is somehow against veterans, who haven't been treated well by the government and have had services cut. They seem to be suggesting that the money could have been used for veterans instead. One of their leaders has said that it would have been ok to give him 1 million, since clearly they were wrong - 10 is just too much. As a former military person, I find myself super-resentful that these guys seem to think they can speak for everyone. But I immediately have all kinds of questions for them which the news people seem to ignore. And I want to question the news people. Why do they let this group imply that veterans as a group all feel similarly? Why don't they make it clear this is a social club, so no surprise that they have similar views? This idea about the $1million makes no sense. They don't actually seem to realize it is a court case, and that the other side has to agree to a settlement. They would never agree to such a low amount, it would not even pay for the lawyers time. In fact, I think they do not actually realize it is a court case at all, they think the government is giving some sort of "compensation." Why would the reporters not ask about that? Why do they not ask what this group would like to see instead? If there was no settlement, the court would get to make the decision, after more expensive court time. It could easily be twice what they paid. Why don't the reporters ask about that? It's like these guys have a poorly thought out position, they cry (literally, on of them was crying) about it on camera, so they get time to air their view without even basic, simple questions being asked of them. Even in the editorial section later, with people who were supposed to be experts, it was less than enlightening - they did not ask simple questions that would have put the decision in some kind of context. What would happen if the trial was finished? What if the government just refused to pay? It seems like reporting now is just so degraded. And I don't really mean partisan - I don't think it was especially. It was just so low level. ETA: and I wonder, can any group with a complaint, no matter how far from reality, get this kind of news coverage? Edited July 10, 2017 by Bluegoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted July 10, 2017 Author Share Posted July 10, 2017 Ha maybe I need to ask a question to get a discussion - do you find news where you live is good at this sort of thing? How should the media decide when to give people a platform? If they do, should they just present what they saw, or ask them questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I read this earlier and completely get what you are saying. I don't know enough about the situation you mentioned to make a good comment though. I have a little insight based on a project my husband was working on, but don't think I can share publicly. It's definitely a problem in his industry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I agree that reporting is degraded. I have watched this progress over the last 20-25 years and it concerns me a great deal. We need the fourth estate to have a well-functioning democracy, and it is being coopted by other interests. I find that extremely dangerous. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted July 10, 2017 Author Share Posted July 10, 2017 So, is it a money thing? I get that news outlets are suffering from its lack. But how do we get to a place where a news reporter just fails to ask obvious questions when interviewing people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Money, lack of staffing, ownership of major media outlets by non-media conglomerates, sensationalized 'media' dominating, lack of paying subscribers due to so much available free on the web, lack of paying advertisers due to so much available free on the web, large corporations buying up all the regular news outlets, serious and drastic cuts in reporting and editing staffs... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scholastica Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 The news is there to sell you beer and shampoo and everything else under the sun just like almost everything on the TV and internet. So, I'm not surprised anymore by poor reporting. I do agree in a degradation of reporting, but I think that stems from a degradation of thought in the larger culture. I am routinely astounded at the lack of critical thinking in this country today. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lea1 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 It certainly seems as if the media's purpose has changed drastically over the years. In the past, it seemed they were determined to tell all sides of a story, to really question and dig deep and to let the consumer decide for themselves what to think. Now it seems they want to tell a story and to shape the story to convince viewers to buy in on the story they are selling. They want to shape opinions and convince people to agree with their beliefs. They also want the "news" to make money so it has to be sensational, even if that means including half truths or adding sensational "questions" that they are never able to definitively answer but are left open to imply something that may not even exist. And this does not happen just on one side of the political aisle. It is both sides that do this. It is so prevalent, so frustrating and annoying that I now get about 99.9% of my news online, where I can read about just what I want to read about and move on when I want and not necessarily have to listen to someone drone on with an opinion that I really don't agree with. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 But how do we get to a place where a news reporter just fails to ask obvious questions when interviewing people? When they ask questions they get accused of bias. (They were just attacking that person!) When they don't ask questions they get accused of bias. (They gave them a free ride!) They get accused either way. So to me it looks like they have just defaulted to not asking the hard questions because that's the easier of the two routes. But hardly the most beneficial for society and the rest of us trying to get information. Asking fact-based questions is part of what they should do as the press. I think it is also part of their responsibility, especially when platforms are given to those with questionable credentials. Giving a platform to those with questionable credentials/motivation without probing or questioning them is irresponsible reporting and harms society. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 It certainly seems as if the media's purpose has changed drastically over the years. In the past, it seemed they were determined to tell all sides of a story, to really question and dig deep and to let the consumer decide for themselves what to think. Now it seems they want to tell a story and to shape the story to convince viewers to buy in on the story they are selling. They want to shape opinions and convince people to agree with their beliefs. They also want the "news" to make money so it has to be sensational, even if that means including half truths or adding sensational "questions" that they are never able to definitively answer but are left open to imply something that may not even exist. And this does not happen just on one side of the political aisle. It is both sides that do this. It is so prevalent, so frustrating and annoying that I now get about 99.9% of my news online, where I can read about just what I want to read about and move on when I want and not necessarily have to listen to someone drone on with an opinion that I really don't agree with. Honestly I think the sensationalism aspect overrides the shaping and convincing of beliefs. There's some of that obviously, but even that quickly takes a backseat to the sensational aspect. It's ridiculous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Money, lack of staffing, ownership of major media outlets by non-media conglomerates, sensationalized 'media' dominating, lack of paying subscribers due to so much available free on the web, lack of paying advertisers due to so much available free on the web, large corporations buying up all the regular news outlets, serious and drastic cuts in reporting and editing staffs... All those things are so true. And yet in the end, we get what we accept (as a society). It comes down to so much laziness on the part of the public. So few people really care anymore to ask for better. Just as an aside, that's why I think the net neutrality issue is so important. If the ISPs get to decide what information is easier to get, or that you don't have to pay data for, most people are just going to go along with that. There are not enough people who will demand equal access to all information. It's a scary place we're heading. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.