April 09, 2018

Sinclair slammed for on-air statement about news “credibility” — and that's not fair

Amanda HeadRebel Contributor


Maybe you saw this — it became a bit of a social media meme:

Sinclair Broadcasting sent a memo about "one-sided news stories" to each of its affiliate stations and their anchors, to read on air.

They are getting ripped by the rest of mainstream media for doing this.

But do you remember back during the Bush administration, when all the MSM talking heads mockingly used the exact same word — "gravitas" — every day for weeks?

How is Sinclair's statement any different from that, and all the other usual parroting echo chamber of leftist narrative propagated by CNN, MSNBC, and so on?

 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-04-10 17:02:47 -0400
Oh Andrew, you are a hilarious!
commented 2018-04-10 01:55:20 -0400
James Risdon it is more the media companies that are to blame than the actual journalists.
commented 2018-04-10 01:54:50 -0400
Andrew Stephenson LMAO! YEAH SURE!
commented 2018-04-09 22:38:14 -0400
I’m a freelance journalist. I report for a mainstream media company. And I’ve been in the business, on and off, for 30 years or so.

My take on it is that anyone giving any interview to any journalist would be wise to know who that journalist is before granting an interview. There are good doctors and bad doctors, good lawyers and bad lawyers, and, yes, good journalists and bad journalists.

It’s true that many of my colleagues in the media have left-of-centre political and cultural views – but not all. There are also conservative journalists in the mainstream media. In many, many cases, their own personal political and cultural views have very little bearing on how they do their jobs as any journalist worth his or her salt will try to be fair and reasonable.

The question an interviewee must ask themselves is this: is the journalist seeking to interview them in fact worth his or her salt – or is this person a hack? A lazy or incompetent journalist can so butcher an interview as to cause a lot of unwarranted damage to the reputation of the interviewee.

That being said, sometimes the damage to the interviewee’s reputation is warranted. A journalist exposing a scandal, for example, may cause the subject of his or her story a great deal of trouble by bringing that person’s nefarious deeds to the public’s eye.

And here’s the rub. When a person gets media coverage that they deem to be negative, the knee jerk reaction is often to blame the journalist. Reporters get accused of misquoting people, taking things out of context, of having political agendas, or simply being incompetent. I fully acknowledge that all of those things are possible. But there’s also another possibility. And it’s this: reality sometimes just bites.

Journalists get accused of wrongdoing for many reasons. In some cases, those criticisms are fair because the journalist messed up, whether intentionally or otherwise. But in other cases, those who do not like to be exposed for what they have actually done simply find it easier to shoot the messenger in the court of public opinion. By accusing the journalist of political bias or incompetence or misquoting things, many a politician or well-known personality has tried to squirm their way out of public scrutiny. It’s a bit of a Hail Mary but sometimes it works for them.

The way I see it, the best remedy for these issues is to teach kids in school about media literacy, inculcate critical-thinking skills, and encourage a media landscape with a diversity of voices. Listening to people who disagree with us is good for the soul. It helps us grow as people. And it also allows us to better recognize cultural and political biases.
commented 2018-04-09 21:36:17 -0400
The difference is that CNN, MSNBC, etc, at least aspire to the truth, rather than simply excitedly reading the latest Trump tweets, invariably glowingly.
commented 2018-04-09 18:37:24 -0400
This article is not downloading?
From The Ground Up