For a very long time I have held what might be termed the Special Theory of Media Incompetence, which is: The mainstream newsmedia is spectacularly incompetent when reporting stories concerning religion, morality, etc.
For example, consider the following four-sentence story from the Associated Press that appeared yesterday:
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama says human cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong" and has no place in society.
Obama made the comments as he was signing an executive order that will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.
Some critics say the research can lead to human cloning. Obama said the government will develop strict guidelines for the research because misuse or abuse is unacceptable.
He said he would ensure that the government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction [SOURCE].
First, there is the second sentence (green quote) flat-out factual error that the new executive order "will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research."
WRONG!
President Bush's previous executive order already allowed the spending of tax-payers' money on ESCR.
What is new is that President Obama's executive order will allow the spending of tax-payers' money on the fresh killing of new babies, as opposed to researching cell lines derived from embryos that had already been killed in the past.
So this is just ignorant reporting by a mainstream media hack.
It would also be easy to be distracted by the reported claim (blue quote) that the president believes human cloning to be "dangerous" and "profoundingly wrong" and ask, "Why on earth would he believe that? If you're willing to munch up babies to get at their stem cells–or even just because they're inconvenient to their mothers–if you're willing to treat human life so cavalierly in the interests of science and expediency–then on what possible ground do you view human cloning as wrong?
Surely such language would be simply that of political expediency rather than an actual moral conviction.
But let's look closer at what actually is being said here.
Is the president really say that he views human cloning as dangerous and profoundly wrong, as the first sentence of the story indicates?
If he did, it would seem there is a significant caveat, because the fourth sentence (red quote) speaks of him restricting the practice of reproductive human cloning (i.e., allowing a cloned human to surv
ive to maturity instead of being killed while still at a gestational stage).
Any way you look at this story, there is a problem.
If the president only said he opposes reproductive cloning but was just fine with human cloning for purposes of experimenting on the unborn then the reporter is at fault for not making this clear. His lede made it sound like the president was opposed to all cloning, and that's not the case.
Also, if the president was explicit in his support of research cloning then the reporter is doubly at fault for making it sound as if the the president is opposed to all cloning when in fact he was explicit about supporting some cloning.
Perhaps the reporter doesn't understand the difference between these two uses of human cloning, or perhaps the reporter was biased, or perhaps both.
Any way you go, I don't know–from the story–what the president actually said or didn't say or what his position on all this actually is (not from the story, mind you).
(I also have no clue why, if the president thinks that it's okay to make babies in petri dishes and that it's okay to genetically screen the ones allowed to come to term–as I assume from other sources that he does–then on what moral grounds would he judge it immoral, the technical problems having been worked out, to use artificial means to produce a genetic twin of an adult and thus deny him the younger twin brother he always wanted to have–but that's another issue.)
So here we have a clear case of mainstream media incompetency dealing with something in the religion/morals area, so . . . a piece of confirmation for the Special Theory of Media Incompetency that I've held for a very long time.
But in recent years, the more I've watched the media work and the more I've been interviewed by it, I've developed a sequel to the Special Theory of Media Incompetence.
I call it the General Theory of Media Incompetence.
It is as follows: The mainstream news media is spectacularly incompetent at reporting stories on virtually any subject.
I just happen to particularly notice its incompetence on the religion/morality ones, because that's my area of expertise.
(Note that I sayd "virtually" any subject. I'm prepared to say that there may be a few exceptions like sports scores or the current average of the sock market–simple, quantifiable things.The kind of thing a chimpanzee could report on by simply looking at a number on a screen and typing that same number a keyboard.)
It’s been my experience that the only thing most reporters can quote accurately is silence.
And some of them even have trouble with that.
Nice to read from you again, Jimmy.
Imagine the potential to prove the veracity of your theory when something like this happens in my country. That’s giving me plenty of opportunity to believe in it, as if I needed any.
Hail Barry, full of hope,
The audacity is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst presidents,
And blessed is the hue of thine epidermis.
Holy Barry, greater than God,
Slay for us embryos.
Now and in the name of all our health,
Amen.
I’ve been seriously weighing whether my newspaper’s Sunday ads and TV guide are worth the subscription price. I don’t mind reading reasoned views that I disagree with, but provide some balance and true discussion. It’s really getting to be tabloid material. No wonder many are going out of business.
I just read the Free Press, by Hillaire Belloc, which has an interesting perspective. He argues that as long as media is sold for significantly less than its cost of production, such that the majority of its revenue comes from advertising, then advertising and entrenched interests govern what the media will print.
The mainstream news media is spectacularly incompetent at reporting stories on virtually any subject.
I’ve found that to be true as well. One of my areas of some expertise is nuclear power and nuclear physics, and I find that the media used to be pretty bad in their reporting in that area as well, though it seems like they have been better in recent years. (But maybe that is just because I have been reading more conservative news sources and fewer MSM sources in recent years, and maybe the conservative sources are more likely to get it right?)
But still, it seems to me that the MSM never gets anything as spectacularly wrong as religion. There are a few exceptions though.
Tim Townsend of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch comes to mind as one of these exceptions. I have read several of his articles about topics concerning the St. Louis archdiocese, and I have always been impressed with the factual accuracy of his articles on matters of liturgy, church governance, and church doctrine.
Once upon a time I was in the U.S. Navy and the MSM didn’t know anything about the military in general or the Navy in particular.
Now I have a law degree and cover tax law for a trade publisher and I come to find out the MSM doesn’t know much about the law or taxes either.
Jimmy, Sounds like another income stream for you if you can figure out how to get your local newspaper to pay you for editing the news for accuracy, particularly related to religious content.
As to the MSM, what do you expect when people are hired for how they look rather than their quals as journalists? Now, if they do a report on hair gel…
BTW, Jimmy, I don’t think they even understand the sock market, never mind the stock market! Jim Cramer’s been yelling at us about what to buy and sell. He should have been yelling at Congress and Bernie Madoff.
The problem, of course, is that the media are no longer in providing complex, balanced, and well-reasoned articles and stories, because apparently that doesn’t sell. Instead, everything must be in dramatic soundbites, the people quoted must be lunatic extremists from either side, and above all, everything has to be snappy and sexy and attention-grabbing. Accuracy and nuance? Boring.
The reporter accomplishes exactly the spin that both the administration and the AP intend. Every word of this is deliberately chosen. And many more people will see or hear these four sentences than will ever read Jimmy’s analysis. It’s all part of the program…
I second the notion of general incompetence and echo the same sentiments as some of the others. I work at NASA, and I’d say the track record of the MSM with respect to science is not much better. The issue I run into most often seems to be that most reporters lack training in science and engineering. Since they lack this training, they have no way of distinguishing between that which is important and that which is not, or, sometimes, just plain wrong. It is a case of garbage in, garbage out. The trade journals, whose reporters have generally been educated in science and engineering, usually do a respectable job.
Stop writing in comment boxes and start writing letters to the editor.
Jimmy,
I think you’ve just re-stated Mark Shea’s law for the Ever-falling IQ of the Media: (paraphrased) When the MSM discusses religion, deduct 50 IQ points. When the MSN discusses Catholicism, deduct 75 IQ points.
Everyone I’ve known who’s been personally involved in a media-reported event has had a hard time recognizing the event as reported. This includes myself. You end up scratching your head, thumbing through the paper or switching channels thinking – the real story must be here somewhere…
So let me get this strait: we’re not maybe two/three steps from human farms? I.e. systematized creation of people for research (and later transplant) purposes?
It all makes you kind of wonder: Has it always been thus? Since, especially in modern societies, current events have been chronicled by journalists, how much of what we think we know about history is in any sense accurate?
This story certainly provides a viable explanation to a question that has bugged me for years. “Why didn’t Christ wait to enter the world until there was global media coverage?”
It seems, as always, he knew best.
The MSM’s lack of intelligence is a result of its leftward leanings in general. This is a symptom of the left’s downward spiral in intelligence.
Their inability to see the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells (and their respective success rates in healing) shows proof. Their inability to report accurately on Catholicism (despite the Church publishing a Catechism with its teachings out in the open)
Their inability to research anything that they accept as leftists (“Obama said this? it is gospel…”)
Absolutely! The CBC is especially incompetent. A search of their website will reveal a number of stories on the Brazilian Excommunications and the Pope’s letter regarding SSPX. It will also reveal the complete ignorance of church affairs, and the lovely bigots who grace the comment section.
That is really my problem: that these stories do not represent the truth, although people take it to be the truth, and then are subsequently offended.
As a priest who is also a mathematician, I’ve been particularly appalled by the inability of the MSM to get large numbers right. This applies to covering demographics, voting, economics (including, especially, the federal and state budgets), and anything of a scientific or engineering nature that involves large numbers. The typical error is three orders of magnitude, e.g. saying billions instead of millions, or vice versa. The MSM have been utterly “caught in the headlights” when it comes to the trillions of dollars of commitments made to ensure the continued health of the economy.
It is the rare religion, science or technology reporter who can get his/her facts right and make the reporting sufficiently articulate as to be understood by an expert. I often wonder if they’re not almost all former sports or society page writers.
I think you’ve just re-stated Mark Shea’s law for the Ever-falling IQ of the Media: (paraphrased) When the MSM discusses religion, deduct 50 IQ points. When the MSN discusses Catholicism, deduct 75 IQ points.
And when Mark Shea discusses politics, especially international politics, deduct 250 IQ points.
Rad-trad/übercatholic smell on the air…
And I was stupid enough to think that such a creature would pay any attention to arguments.