I feel this way about every single newsworthy event that I've observed either first-hand or through--as you put it--a passionate interest. News coverage is routinely wrong out of laziness or willfully misrepresenting of the truth. And I'm not talking about political or even vaguely controversial events. A report on a fire I had observed as a child was wrought with errors in our local paper's coverage. Before the Tesla Model S became the media sensation it is now, I would read coverage and marvel at how many articles wrongly reported its price, specs, range.
I think people are sometimes deluded into feeling a news service is reputable, diligent, unbiased, and incorruptible by way of its tone and the way it carries itself. But the veil is off once you have observed something directly and then read their coverage of the same event.
It made me far less credulous of news stories.
I happened to be born in Bulgaria and keep current with events. This is what struck me:
1) Times' perspective: "prominent radio journalist". For anybody living in the country, the victim was a convicted conman who used his game show to defraud participant and advertisers. His other claim to fame: admittedly close connections with the mob. The "exposing the underworld" book they refer to was in the spirit of "one night, me and my buddies...". At best, the victim could have been described as a radio game show host.
2) At the end of the article, they referred to a US embassy report stating that there's been 125 contract killings in 2008 alone.
I sent an email challenging the "facts" and asked for a pointer to the embassy report. They corrected the number by an order of magnitude and ignored the rest.
NY Times is more hit or miss. There's less of pro-government bias, but more of a liberal slant. But certainly they can not be depended upon to report the news in an unbiased fashion.
All things considered, journalism in the US is in a sad state.
Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening.
That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.
You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia").
That is crazy.
What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document.
There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy).
Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest.
Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified.
> There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either.
I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense.
By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact".
I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that.
By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other.
I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious.
If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here>
I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be.
The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do.
No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.
But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
This should not be surprising. NPR is based in DC - a company town where the company is the US government. Many of their employees are relatives or friends of government officials or are even former government employees (for example [1]). Most of these relationships are not well known or reported. All of this is in addition to the normal reporter conflicts of having to report on your ongoing sources. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be to report a negative story about your husband, brother, friend, former colleague or regular source who happens to be a senator.
On top of that NPR is funded by corporations, people and foundations with strong ties to government (Comcast, Soros, Catto Foundation) as well as receiving direct government funding [2]. You don't bite the hand that feed you.
Lastly NPR like most US news organizations has a moderate liberal bias [3,4]. So with a Democratic administration currently in office NPR will be particularly sympathetic to the administration's viewpoint.
All these factors will make it very difficult for NPR to cover this story fairly. This will show up in both visible actions, such as attacking the Guardian reporter [5, AP too [6]]. But even more so in what does not make it on the air. I'm sure many NPR editors would like to leave this uncomfortable business behind as soon as possible. At least we can continue count on NPR to be an excellent source of the government's views.
[1] Michelle Norris is married to a senior advisor to Obama campaign[a]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-...
[2] Partial list of NPR sponsors (couldn't find anything after 2008). http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsD...
[3] Juan Williams termination report. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilli...
[4] NPR fundraising exec sting. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-...
[5] NPR examines Guardian reporter who broke PRISM story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-...
[6] AP examines Guardian reporters bias [b]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1905713...
a-More on Michelle Norris's husband, Broderick Johnson (also former AT&T lobbyist). http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=1855...
b-Another unreported relationship: Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe) is the daughter of former Nation Security Advisor and current Ambassador to Sweden Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Not a fan of Mika Brzezinski but you're being unfair in calling these unreported relationships. How would you suggest they go about reporting these relationships?
2) I don't watch MSNBC - you do. I was referring to the AP article linked as [6] above where Mika attacks the Guardian reporter. That is why [b] was next to that link. Mika's father was not mentioned there. I just recognized the last name and checked - bingo! Did you look before calling me "unfair"? Guess not - sigh!
That's ridiculous! She isn't even quoted in that article. Here's the paragraph you're referring to:
On "Morning Joe," he snapped that co-host Mika Brzezinski was using "Obama talking points" when she challenged him with a question.
Do you really expect a reference to her father's former post anytime she's mentioned in an article?
Did you know before her announcement how cozy her husband was with the administration she covered every day for 3 years plus the 2008 campaign?
Michele Norris announced her leave of absence soon after her husband accepted a position with the Obama campaign in 2011 [1][2]. Admittedly the journalist/politician-lobbyist relationship thing is troubling and she didn't take a leave of absence in 2008 when he was an unpaid adviser, although she did in 2004 when her husband worked with the Kerry campaign [3].
And no, I don't watch MSNBC, or any of the other toy news networks. But three years ago, when I still had a TV and paid more attention to politics, I would occasionally watch that show while I got ready for the day. Mika is a lightweight, you can hardly call her a journalist. But even she shouldn't have to have her father's name tattooed to her forehead for the rest of her life.
1. http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=1855...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-...
3. http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/10/michele-norris-npr-hos...