The media and credibility

The purpose of this blog is to encourage people to think for themselves, and not to accept as fact everything they see and hear. I use the word lemmings to describe these people; they follow blindly without questioning. I see articles, videos, and news items daily that spout alleged facts. I hear, or participate in, conversations where I hear unfounded assertions. This blog’s purpose is not to persuade you one way or another; it is to encourage you to research things for yourself. I sincerely hope you enjoy my blog.-Pete

My Facebook friends run the gamut from right-wing conservatives to left-wing liberals with a few fundamentalist Christians thrown in for good measure. As a result, my news feed page can sometimes look like a battlefield. Of course, this is a treasure trove of inspiration for my blog. Here is the latest subject- Credibility in the media.

One Facebook friend posted this headline with a link to the article: “ Iran: More accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats”. I clicked on the link and I find myself at a blog. The blog then directs me to the
actual website from which the story originated. I started reading with great interest about all the concessions Iran made to the western diplomats, including President Obama, in this seven and a half hour meeting. Then I noticed something. I noticed that there were not many quotes in the story. There were certainly many statements, but few quotes. As I looked for the quoted parts, I found that one quote came from “… a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity”. While the meeting took place in Geneva, the article used a quote from President Obama in Washington. The skeptic in me started wondering about how accurate the story was.

It took me all of thirty seconds to find another article with this headline:
"Iran's leader: Obama wrong to say nuke site hidden". I started reading this article, looking for corroboration of the first article. Here is what I found. There were many points in both stories that were very similar. However, I found one glaring difference; cited quotes. The second story had quotes from people actually at the meeting, and named them. One such statement went like this: “But Mehdi Saffare, Iran's ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks, said Iran had not yet agreed to such a plan”. Now there is a problem. We have two articles on the exact same meeting, both talking about an agreement where “Western officials” claim that Iran had made concessions on the matter. However, one article names an Iranian official who was at the meeting that says no such agreement took place. This claim seems to get reinforcement from the quotes from Iran’s President himself blasting President Obama’s mistakes on the matter. Which story should you believe?

Pardon me while I express an opinion here. As I was growing up, I learned that the news was where we were supposed to discover about world events. Journalists were “reporters”; they saw things and reported them. That was all. In today’s world, true journalism no longer exists, at least not in the main stream. How many times have you heard a comment from someone you know who said something like this: I do not watch/listen to that station because it leans to the right/left? I hear it daily. I have had friendly discussions with intelligent people who flat out said that a news channel’s coverage was invalid because of their political leanings. It appears as though there is no such thing as unbiased reporting; news outlets have become marketing tools to promote agendas. That is my opinion. Now back to the blog.

This is a perfect example of my blog’s purpose. This is a tale of two stories. Both are very similar, until you get to the headlines. One story lacks properly cited quotes or references, and the few quotes in the story are unnamed or outdated. The other story names of the sources of the quotes from participants in the event. News reporting is supposed to be about gathering facts. Use the links to read both stories and then decide which you think is more credible. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.

References

Akbar Dareini, A. (2009, October 2). Iran's leader- Obama wrong. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Yahoo.com: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear;_ylt=Aq_4yz3T9AU37o8SIbQCirys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0amtpZjdlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDA0L21sX2lyYW5fbnVjbGVhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Z1bGxuYnNwc3Rvcg--

Greenwald, G. (2009, October 1). Iran:More accomplished. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html?source=newsletter>

Strobel, W., & Talev, M. (2009, October 2). Iran agrees . Retrieved October 3, 2009, from mcclatchydc.com: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/76369.html