…and media lies in general:
What would happen if all of the stories in the Times – or the Washington Post, or your local newspaper or television news – were subject to the sort of expert scrutiny as this Luo article, in a given day or week? What percentage of reporting would we discover is marginally biased, seriously slanted, or even fabricated?
I strongly suspect that the resulting scrutiny would reveal a dark and ugly secret that the media isn’t remotely interested in reporting the news, it’s interested in shaping the news, and your perception of the world.
Yes, and a full decade into the blogosphere, they still often get away with it.
Um – link points to the AdviceGoddes article again?
When has a news story about something you personally know ever been completely correct? I first noticed the phenomenon in popular news outlets’ reports on technology, but I recognized right away that “the news media has particular blind spots coinciding with subjects I’m well-versed in” was a less likely explanation than “the news media makes this many errors all the time, but I can only spot them if I know the subject myself beforehand”.
I do think that in most cases incompetence is more likely than malice. Combine ignorance with confirmation bias and you get a powerfully biased filter, no intentional “slanting” required.
Combine ignorance with confirmation bias and you get a powerfully biased filter, no intentional “slanting” required.
However, if you notice that all of the errors on your bank statement are in the bank’s favor, it’s reasonable to consider that something other than simple math errors are the cause. When virtually all of the errors in MSM outlets are in one direction (to the left), it’s reasonable to believe ideology is at least partly responsible.
One of the dumbest errors appeared in print many years ago where an article mentioned the “E-2 Hawkeye jet fighter.” That statement had 3 errors in 4 words which may be a record.
“When has a news story about something you personally know ever been completely correct?”
It only ever happens when the journalist happens to have a degree (or significant experience) in the field in question.
The current promotion/rewards approaches of big media means that focusing on anything isn’t a means to ‘the big chair’. And a “profession” that’s more properly called newsreading.
I don’t expect perfection – confusing a howitzer with a tank doesn’t faze me. But confusing a jeep with a tank just makes it how obviously useless the field is from top to bottom.
Confusing a Howitzer with a tank does confuse me. It is like confusing a sub with a cruiser.
I think a tank can be confused with a self-propelled Howitzer by a layperson.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PzH_2000
I could have told you the difference when I was 11.
I’m thinking of the differences between the M109A6 and M1A1.
They’re armored, tracked BFVs, both with large barrels on them. If the barrel is lowered for travel, they look reasonably similar. (If the barrel is aimed at the sky, you think “What is that tank trying to hit, the moon?!? … oh, not a tank.)
The non-self-propelled ones are, indeed, ridiculously non-tanklike.
Comparing an Abrams to a Pallidin makes an old Cav Warriror like me groan.
It could be worse. They could confuse an M113 as a tank.
I got pissed when somebody would call an M577 an M113!
Too often I heard people refer to the M113 used at KSC for an emergency escape vehicle at pad 39 as a tank.
You know what the diff between a 113 and a 577 is?
Only a Hobbit can stand up in a 113 and it is big compared to a Soviet BMP.