Words as weapons; truth vs. fiction

I'll never forget covering a touchy subject in Manchester years ago. After the paper came out, I had reps from both sides of the issue call me up and chew me out for taking the other side. I also had reps from both sides call me up and thank me out for taking their side.

I just grinned. That's when you know you've done it right.

Tattoos & Scars,you nailed this one right between the eyes. I could not have stated it better.

Journalism has completely changed. No longer are most journalists reporting the facts and letting the reader decide his/her own opinion. Since most major news outlets are owned by one side or another, then their opinion (more importantly, the opinion of advertisers) will be heard the most.

It is now more difficult than ever to simply find the facts, which is why I enjoy an abundant of news. If I have to find the truth, then I can. One of the best examples is the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. If I want the liberal view then I read the Post, if I want the conservative view then I read the Times.

Times have changed! Journalists are not to be blamed because they have been taught to write objectively. However, when the owner steps in and says he needs a different view, then who do you think will win - a paycheck or journalist integrity?

One recent example of how liberal "political correctness" effects our main stream news media is a disturbing murder case in Knoxville. A white college couple was brutally kidnapped, tortured, raped, murdered and their bodies mutilated by four black thugs. Outside of Knoxville, this case hasn't been heard of much. However if the race of the victims and perpetrators had been reversed, this story would still be being sensationalized by the mainstream media. The liberally biased "news" networks have stated that they have played down this story so as not to inflame racial animous. Too bad they didn't do the same for the innocent Duke lacross players.

Examples?

Some liberal lies and bias in the media:

I remember the biggest lie from the MSM in the past few years was the Rathergate documents.

Or MSNBC reporting how "white racists" were toting guns to obama's speeches when the man they showed during the story was actually a black man.

Or the daily death counts for Iraq and Afghanistan while Bush was is office which are silent now.

Most polling shows Americans relying more and more on the internet and talk radio for their news and less and less on newspapers and TV.

Recent Gallup polls show that three times as many Americans see a liberal media bias as opposed to a conservative one.

"Finding the truth in any situation can be difficult."

I hate to sound like a skeptic or a cynic, but I cannot pass up the opportunity. It is elusive because it does not exist, except within the individual minds of those who have been conditioned to find it within the clearly defined and well structured parameters which depend less and less on abstract reality and more on justification of an already determined mindset, instilled and cultivated in order to maintain the supremacy of the ideology presented.

"Any way it happens, the public loses."

I imagine it happens by design, and that the public invariably does lose. Real investigative journalism is dead, or at least impaired to the point of perpetual hibernation by the lack of capital incentive. When the gate keepers of accepted news are motivated primarily by their bottom lines and/or political affiliations when determining which stories will be covered, or more importantly-seriously covered, we find what we appear to have today, which resembles a hierarchy of information propagation that is dominated by press releases and "spin". It is not the individual journalists fault. There is no future for anyone swimming upstream, nor is anyone who is compelled to rock the boat, likely to be given the opportunity to do so effectively. The individuals who make a career of information transmission are after all just individuals who, like the rest of us, bring their human nature to work with them every day. That nature includes the biases and heuristics we all rely upon to make it through our day, whether or not we consider them to be our own, or instilled by others.

We have been convinced that there are 2 sides to every story, when in all actuality, there are many. Perhaps when we achieve the ability to seriously examine the sides that do not fit neatly into the categories we have been provided, those sides that lie just this side of where our imagination and accepted reality meet, we may come to realize that this "truth" we search for has long since been relinquished to those who currently provide our accepted truths. "Even a madman reasons correctly, only under false pretense." Although I can not attribute the quote, and have undoubtedly butchered it, that is the only truth I can personally discern.

I find it ironic at best that the subject of "Words as Weapons, Truth vs. Fiction" is in a blog of all places. Blogs are a great place for people to vent but a piss poor place for people to discuss news. For an actual "Newspaper" to post blogs is, to me, a disgrace and an insult. We look to the "news" for facts, not whatever you want to call what happens in a blog.

One day soon, I hope that someone who is a victim of the type of slander that goes on in these blogs has the courage and the pocket book necessary to take these "so-called" media sources to court and sue the liquidity out of them. These newspapers are running out of steam because they continue to placate the left in this country and the public is getting tired of it. So, instead of actually reporting the actual news, they find outlets such as this blog to "get us going" and ensure their popularity. They think that if you say something controversial on their site, then they can't get in trouble for it. But, this is supposed to be a source for objective media.

Blogs have no legitimate place on newspaper web sites. And the ultimate slap in the face, a columnist who purports to care what the truth is on a blog of all places. Any credible reporter wouldn't use a forum such as this. Instead, why don't you actually tell us what bias you have (because you all have one) and report what you want to say in that context. Allow opposing biased viewpoints by reporters who lean in the other direction and allow us, as readers, to decide what is true and what is not.

The mainstream media believes that they are so superior in intellect to the rest of the American public that they ought to be able to indoctrinate the rest of us as they see fit by their biased reporting. This sort of blatant history re-writing used to work before the information age but now, it is just annoying and sad. There is no way to keep the truth away from an interested and informed public and the mainstream media is going to continue to lose ratings until they decide to come clean and participate in open and fair dialogue.

I mean, why would anyone want to get their news opinions from someone like David Letterman anyway? I, and many like me, could care less about what hollywood actors and comedians think about politics or world events unless they are intended to make me laugh, not influence my thoughts. I just want the undiluted information. Let me decide for myself what relevance the information has to my life and my own decisions. I don't want this or any other paper to interpret for me what they think just happened. I just want the information; "just the facts, nothing but the facts."