Media should be fined for factual inaccuracies (or distortions)

bwagy

Ben Young, serial entrepreneur, speaker, author and founder of bwagy shares daily ideas on his blog in small digestible bites, aimed to make you rethink business, marketing and the world around you. check out http://blog.bwagy.com

Have been fatigued with mainstream media for quite some time.
/img/placeholder.gif?aHR0cDovL2k1OTYucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy90dDQ1L2dldGZyYW5rLzEwMDUwOS9tZWRpYV9tb25rZXlzLmpwZw==

I can’t watch one hour of the news without pointing out an inaccuracy.

The common ones are:

    * Distortion of statistics, establishing causation or correlation in statistics where there is no link.  (My #1 gripe). (Does no news network ever have a statistician validate numbers?!?!!)
    * Misquoting, taking a 5 second sound bite out of a larger conversation.  Using this you can slur a story anyway you want.
    * Hearsay reported as fact.
    * Blatant delivering a press release as news (ie human interest story solved by a new product).

Media should be fined for misrepresentation, I am happy for them to say their ‘may’ be a link between these or to say rumour has it.  But be honest, say what it is.  Otherwise you should get fined for it.

And lets be honest they’re never going to report news saying it’s based on hearsay.  As you will realise it’s rubbish – or is that just the definition of mainstream media in the 21st century?

What do you think?

 
Sort by
  • Todadisko says
    Since news/stories are more kind of one-off products, people just don't care, and editors are too busy to meet the deadline.

    If there were any mistakes or distortions, that's even better for media businesses, since it will generate buzz, as we know publicity is everything regardless good or bad (think about those celebrities).

    So I think mainstream media (or mass media) is all about buzz and ads, telling people what they want to hear, and making money on ads.

    Sad but that's how the world works, mainstream medias are controlled by few, targeting different demographic groups, to distribute the ads.

    If one wants serious stories, insights and analysis, professional magazines and blogs are better choice.

    One of my favourite sites for REAL stories by actual JOURNALISTS and economists: www.globalresearch.ca

    This site isn't all candy floss like main stream media and isn't a conspiracy theory blogg either.
    Reply
  • Iain says
    I love the way the media run every press release from every "scientific study" they receive, especially if they refer to CANCER, without noting why the research was done. And they report it like it's surprising: "A scientific study has found that drinking more than 8 litres of alcohol a night can be damaging to your health".
    Reply
  • Steve says
    Ben,

    You make a fundamental mistake. You somehow assume that the purpose of the mainstream media is to inform. Sorry, it is not. Nor has it been so for a long, long time.

    Naturally, if you think they are trying to inform, and then they serve rubbish, you are bound to be disappointed.

    The purpose of the mainstream media is to entertain. And the purpose of the entertainment is to entice eyes to their advertisers.

    Therefore they will tell you whatever they think will cause the strongest emotional response. In order to do so, they either lie, or they take that small portion of the truth that will excite the viewers/readers.

    This is no secret. If you keep this in mind, you will not get upset. In fact, you will probably, like I do, avoid the mainstream media altogether.

    It is, of course, very sad that so many people erroneously think they know what's going on in the world, based on reading newspapers or watching TV. In fact, it's more than sad, it's terrifying.
    Reply
  • Michael says
    it's all about getting viewers' attention - saying "rumour has it something may or may not have happened" is not as strong as "OMG SOMTHING HAPPENED!!!!111"

    And in their defence, news networks have to gather heaps of information quickly from various sources and present these info clearly and in a timely fashion. Sometimes the crew dont have the necessary expertise to comprehend whats happening or perhaps they don't have time to do research because they have to put out the news quickly. At the end of the day, it is up to the viewers to be sceptical about what media says and form their own opinions rather than just letting the media think for them.
    Reply
  • Del Betham says
    i totally agree with Steve Schapel. I used to live on an island were the only source of information on what's happening in the world was CNN or BBC. When I finally had the opportunity to leave the island and see the world for myself, I got quite a shocking revelation. Not everything you see on TV is restricted to the sight of the cameraman. there's a whole world of more interesting things happening in the background that's not distracted by the car bomb or land slide. I'm a news freak. Everything the news reader says is the TRUTH. NO wonder he gets paid big bucks.
    Reply

Post your comment

Want to have your say?

It's quick, easy and 100% free.

  •  

Latest discussions