In the past ten years more and more media icons have been stepping out of the spot light of truth and falling from the grace of integrity. In the past two years alone we've seen and heard journalists such as Jonathan Karl who reported on what he claimed to be emails from the Obama administration on Benghazi that eventually turned out to be from an "unnamed source". The "source" claiming, through Karl, that the emails were indeed legitimate, but summarized. I suppose that instead of the summary being necessary in order to lie about the actual facts, it was genuinely meant to make it easier for us to understand. (foreign policy can be so difficult to comprehend). At least Karl Tweeted that he regretted the error.
We're still waiting on a Tweet from Rachael Maddow ( I Love That Guy!!) who accused Koch Industries of being involved in the backing of Florida legislation for drug testing welfare recipients. The Washington Post actually denounced her journalistic practices stating that she made a public claim and then sought evidence to support it. To date, there has been no evidence, besides innuendo, that links the Koch brothers to any manipulation of the legislation and Maddow has not retracted or apologized for her statements. She claims she doesn't "do requests". She also doesn't tell the truth while not doing them.
CNN reporters Ashleigh Banfield and Nancy Grace were exposed staging a satellite report from the Boston Marathon bombing while in the same parking lot with the same street behind both of their camera shots. You can see the traffic in the background go by one reporter and then the other. It just goes to show that not only half truths exists in the media but also stupidity runs rampant. Especially when you try to be the "first" one on the scene.
Now lets get to the jewels of our Blarney crown. First up... Bill O'Reilly. (c'mon... you knew it was coming.... and where do I even begin?). In his book The No Spin Zone O'Reilly makes claims about his reporting in the Falklands during the conflict between Argentina and Great Britain over two British territories and although he was indeed in Buenos Aires (1200 miles away from the fighting) his embellishments on the protest riots are very close to works of fiction. He has stated that "A major riot ensued and many were killed.", although no reports of any fatalities during the protests have ever been documented. Then, while on assignment in El Salvador, during the country's civil war, he reported from the town of Meanguera after a rebel attack. Upon arriving there he commented that "We saw no one alive or dead. There was absolutely nobody around that could tell us what happened." but his video documented report from Meanguera on May 20th 1982 clearly shows quite a few people walking around. Why didn't he ask them? They walked right in front of his cameraman. It should have been a journalistic cinch-no-brainer. Maybe none of them spoke English. They were all probably "gutter snipes" and "liars" anyway. Not to pick on O'Reilly (although he makes it so darn easy and irresistible I just can't help myself) but in another of his books, Killing Kennedy, on page 300 he claims to have been knocking on he door of Lee Harvey Oswald's friend George de Mohrenschildt's daughter's home in Manalapan, Florida (did you follow all that?) when he heard the gunshot that ended de Mohrenschlidt's life. Two problems Billy boy. First de Mohrenschildt did not kill himself at his daughters house. He was in fact at the home of Nancy Tilton. And second, according to his former employer WFAA in Texas, he wasn't in Florida at the time and was not even reporting on de Mohrenschlidt until after the suicide let alone at the wrong house. Who keeps track of this stuff anyway?
And the cherry on top of our Fibber McGee sundae with Blarney sauce is none other than Brian Williams. If you've even just glimpsed at the news or the internet lately there is no way any of us could have missed this story. I case you did, Williams admitted that he was not in a Chinook helicopter in Iraq that was hit by two RPG's and small arms fire as he reported, but in fact was in the helicopter following the one that was hit. Sorry Brian....wrong war. You can lie about Vietnam all you want, but you can't tell untruths about our modern military fighting terrorists.... your a journalist.... you should know these things. There have also been unsubstantiated claims recently that he stretched the truth about his reporting on hurricane Katrina's flood waters, filth and his alleged dysentery as a result of them. I suppose fecal matter knows fecal matter. We'll never know though, I can find no substantial facts to back that one up. (You can feel free to infer a pun if you wish.). For the helicopter rouse Williams was suspended by NBC for six months without pay and many speculate that this is the beginning of the end of his career. Now that was one expensive helicopter ride. He should have stuck with the Ellis Island tour.
With all these lies whirling around in the current media cyclone of accusations one has to ask themselves, who do I trust? Who do I believe? The answer, my loyal reader, is everyone an no one. In all my research, all my reading, listening and Observing I have found that truth and lies exist in every story, article or report. That was the easy part to figure out. The difficult part is identifying which is which. The best any of us can do is to take nothing at face value. Question everything you see, hear or read. The way we perceive the media today is a lot different than 35 years ago. Back then the three networks only had two broadcasts each. One local and one national sandwiched in the 6 o'clock hour. 3 networks, 6 broadcast.......No CNN, no HLN or Fox ( Fox wasn't even a network then) that was it.... along with the one local newspaper you read and if you were a really ambitious news hound, one regional newspaper and a magazine or two. Simple and easy. No rating wars, no paper circulation fights. It was safe for people to become familiar with broadcasters like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. They could become monogamous with newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times. Within the comfort zone of consistency came the public's trust in these institutions. Then came cable, followed by the internet and the media explosion was ignited. Twenty four hour news channels, every story in the papers, magazines and on television only a few keystrokes away. It became much easier to find things you wanted to know about and much harder to find the truth about them. And somewhere within the modern media onslaught came a change in the way we view it. We've come to accept news broadcasts as entertainment and most networks capitalize on that. Network news only focusing a few minutes on real news and giving more and more time to human interest and feel good stories saturated in syrupy, goodie goodie attempts to gain ratings. As of late within that trend is lying and getting caught lying, which in turn becomes a news story about how the reporter or the person interviewed lied, which raises ratings because people want to know who lied and how they got caught so they can talk about the person who lied...... Holy Vicious Cycle, Peter Jennings!
What bothers me the most is how, for some reason, it seems there are different levels of accountability for these discretions. Just for example lets take our last two Blarney artist bozos. Both have made the same transgression and O'Reilly has demonstrated that his pot has no problem at all calling William's kettle black. So why is O'Reilly still on the air making these statements and Williams is not? I think this is a legitimate question that deserves an honest answer, but as of yet I have been unable to find one. I've only come across theories because neither network has made a statement on the situation. Both networks are trying to save face for different reasons. Some claim that it's because Williams has admitted his lie and O'Reilly is aggressively denying the accusations against him. Political consultant David Axelrod stated that "Fox news isn't a real news organization and Bill O'Reilly isn't a real journalist.". So he should get a hall pass to lie to the public because people don't expect him or his network to tell the truth? According to a 2003 Florida Court of Appeals ruling, the answer is yes and just by coincidence (wink... wink ;) the ruling was prompted by a Fox news lawsuit. In answer to an assertion by Fox the court determined that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. The court also interpreted that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule or regulation". It was simply a "policy" and therefore it was at a networks discretion whether or not it wanted to report honestly. Wait..... What? That's right everyone... the media can legally lie.... at least in Florida. "Arrrgh...They be more like guidelines, Capn' Sparrow". To go one further (now I never do that... do I?) since this courts ruling there has been no legislation introduced anywhere to dispute it. So it's perfectly legal to get on live TV and lie to the public about..... anything. Just make sure you don't swear while your lying or you'll get fined..... just ask Howard Stern. Now that sheds a whole new light on the phrase" Goodnight and good luck".
Collectively we expect our media to be honest. We want to believe that what we see, hear or read is the truth and scoff at accusations of falsehoods. The problem is that there is no definitive line between the two. There is a grey area, even though there isn't supposed to be and it's very easy to cross because we make it easy for the media to do so just by watching. We hear about it every day as we witness our media's foundations crumble away, made necrotic by scandals of lies and partial truths. The "truth" of the matter is that it's almost impossible to put any faith whatsoever in any modern news source. Furthermore, what is considered fact today could easily be denounced as fiction tomorrow, next month or ten years from now. We can believe what we hear and take a chance or believe nothing and remain indifferent to the world around us. Now, I have enough trouble deciding between butter and Country Crock, I don't need this on top of that. I personally have found over the years that we have to pursue the truth and not to expect it. Listen and read everything on the subject at hand an find the common core thread in every report or article. When the individual "spin" falls away what is left over is probably as close to the truth as you will get. You may also be surprised, as I was, when you realize it is usually the smallest part of the story. As a society we may certainly expect the truth. Where we make our mistake is in the belief that we will actually get it. Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, I've got a stone waiting to be kissed.
View my other articles and Like Strictly an Observer on Facebook
Follow Strictly an Observer on Twitter
Follow Strictly an Observer on Google+
