Questioning the news
I've been thinking about this letter to the editor by a Greensboro College professor in which she encourages readers and her students not to trust the media.
I teach critical reading skills to my college students. We look at a text and ask ourselves: Who is the writer? What is the writer's purpose? What is the text saying? How does word choice impact the reader? Does the writer succeed? Students realize that all texts have an agenda, no matter how subtle.
Putting aside the vague generalities of what she considers media -- I wonder what she thinks of the stereotypes of the political persuasion of college professors -- it is an interesting letter. I agree with the above exerpted paragraph, but not with her conclusion.
I wouldn't say "don't trust." It closes the door too soundly. Instead, I encourage skepticism. And I don't restrict it to the media. I advise people to be skeptical, period. Here's why: Is the Web "the media"? Is an unsolicited mass e-mail you receive "the media"? Is a friend telling you a story about something he's heard "the media"? There are plenty of examples of each being even less worthy of trust for accuracy than The Onion.
Alan Mutter: A few weeks ago, a story ricocheted around the Internet about a 13-year-old boy who stole his father’s credit card to hire hookers to play videogames with him in a Texas motel. The problem is that the story wasn't the least bit true.
But the reaction to the widely discussed hoax was not outrage from many of the publishers and marketers who ply the web for fun and profit. Much to the contrary, several celebrated the stunt, offering hearty congratulations to the perpetrator....
The steady pollution of the web with phony and malicious info-junk could turn an awesome resource for humanity into little more than useless, time-wasting digital flotsam
Think that is out of the ordinary? Here are four other examples.
You can reflect on the e-mail crapola you receive and the stories you hear from friends that you know are bogus.
American Journalism Review has a longer takeout on media bias that is worth reading. It describes the public perceptions, manipulations, industry manipulations and media realities accurately....at least to this biased observer.
Bottom line: Every source should be questioned, no matter how esteemed. Does the story make sense? Sound unbelievable? Photos can be Photoshopped. Video can be tricked. Think Kobe jumped over that Aston Martin? Think again.
That shouldn't bother mainstream organizations, even though it does sometimes. (We try to get over ourselves.) We doubt and question sources that tell us things. Why would we expect you to do anything less? Over time, you will either trust our reporting or not.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I would question how anyone who lays claim to teaching critical thinking would use to the term "the media" so blithely. The failure to distinguish between different kinds and levels of media sources seems to me, to be quite uncritical.
Yes, question what you read. Question the sources. And if you really have a question, call us up and ask a question.
Or would that be too much work for someone engaged in critical thinking?
Posted on May 28, 2008 8:24 PM
I agree with the professor. Mr. Brinker critical thinking is when you give fair coverage to both sides of and issue ! Of all the news I read and watch, very few give complete details.
Posted on May 29, 2008 7:48 AM
TV ratings just out. FOX number one for 77th straight month. Rating up 26%. Seems folks will pay to get real unbias news.
Posted on May 29, 2008 8:40 AM
Doug, critical thinking is examining an issue in depth before coming to any conclusion. It's true we don't give complete details with every story because we don't have the time, the space or the information.
It is interesting that your next comment is evidence of your concern about a lack of completeness. FOX network or just news? Does that include the major networks or just cable? What hours and demographics are you referring to? What are people "paying" for when you say they will pay for unbiased news? Why do you say it is unbiased and, presumably all the others are biased?
I don't want to get into a discussion about the value of FOX news or other news programs. I only ask those questions to make the point of the post -- that people should be skeptical of statements posed as fact, even when it comes from friends.
Posted on May 29, 2008 9:03 AM
"...that people should be skeptical of statements posed as fact, even when it comes from friends."
Or professors, or blog commenter, etc...
Doug: I fully embrace the full examination of both sides of the issue. What I was suggesting is that the professor fell far short of her own standard for critical thinking.
I'm curious, you appear to favor Fox news. Do you think critically about their broadcasts or accept everything they present on its face?
Posted on May 29, 2008 11:32 AM
No, I do not except anything for a fact. However if you will notice, only Fox gives 2 sides for most stories. If I read this right, its for cable news. NBC, CBS, ABC, can not draw flies to a picnic. Mr. Robinson, if something is growing, most of the time something being done right. You make a point above, at my house, its coffee and paper. That's why, I can not for the life of me figure out why papers, do not have right and left, it only makes sense to me, that would grow the paper.
Posted on May 30, 2008 6:14 AM
Doug, how come you use a name sometimes and the "This Dog" appellation other times?
You assert as fact, without providing any supporting evidence, that only FOX gives 2 sides. That is not my experience in watching all channels. The viewership of NBC, CBS and ABC, by the way, far exceed any of the cable news channels.
If you read our editorial pages, we provide a healthy dose of liberal and conservative commentators.
Posted on May 30, 2008 8:39 AM