Why the media has a bad reputation
Today, I was listening to the national news on the radio half heartedly and heard a story with the headline that 80% of blacks would not return to New Orleans. Wow, I thought. 80% of blacks won't return. That's huge. I think I heard a blurb on the TV about it, too. And I saw a headline from an AP article on the internet (one that would have made it into newspapers). Wow! That's huge. Then I read the story.
The headline and the first paragraph did not contain the caveat of the story. The second paragraph did. The caveat was that 80% of blacks would not return "if the city's returning population was limited to neighborhoods undamaged by Katrina." In other words, if only those from undamaged areas returned, 80% of the blacks would not return. If . . . .
It is an interesting statistic. The study that it came from certainly shows that more blacks were hurt in the city than whites, but the 80% number is meaningless. Many, many blacks are returning to damaged neighborhoods and many more will return. The 80% number doesn't come close to telling us reality. It is a figure than an amateur statistician would use when all the facts aren't considered. It tells us nothing.
But it is so striking that it just makes a great headline. Any headline that makes me say "Wow" is going to sell papers and commercial time. The trouble is: I really had to search and hear the story three times before I understood it. I don't have time to read every story three times from three different sources. I work. I have a family. Isn't the media supposed to educate me about the world? If I cannot get my information relatively quickly, I won't be able to get it. If the information is buried or is misleading, am I really being educated? What good is the media if it doesn't educate?
That's why I don't like the media. They sensationalize everything so as to sell newspapers and commercial time, but such sensationalism hurts their ability to education, yet the media is there to educate (or is supposed to be). The media has abrogated its role as an educator in favor of a roll as an entertainer. As such, it cannot be trusted as an educator. In their defense, most of the problem is that the public wants to be entertained. That's our fault. Nevertheless, the media still wears the verneer of an educator. That is misleading. Because of this and political bias, the media has a well-deserved poor reputation.
The headline and the first paragraph did not contain the caveat of the story. The second paragraph did. The caveat was that 80% of blacks would not return "if the city's returning population was limited to neighborhoods undamaged by Katrina." In other words, if only those from undamaged areas returned, 80% of the blacks would not return. If . . . .
It is an interesting statistic. The study that it came from certainly shows that more blacks were hurt in the city than whites, but the 80% number is meaningless. Many, many blacks are returning to damaged neighborhoods and many more will return. The 80% number doesn't come close to telling us reality. It is a figure than an amateur statistician would use when all the facts aren't considered. It tells us nothing.
But it is so striking that it just makes a great headline. Any headline that makes me say "Wow" is going to sell papers and commercial time. The trouble is: I really had to search and hear the story three times before I understood it. I don't have time to read every story three times from three different sources. I work. I have a family. Isn't the media supposed to educate me about the world? If I cannot get my information relatively quickly, I won't be able to get it. If the information is buried or is misleading, am I really being educated? What good is the media if it doesn't educate?
That's why I don't like the media. They sensationalize everything so as to sell newspapers and commercial time, but such sensationalism hurts their ability to education, yet the media is there to educate (or is supposed to be). The media has abrogated its role as an educator in favor of a roll as an entertainer. As such, it cannot be trusted as an educator. In their defense, most of the problem is that the public wants to be entertained. That's our fault. Nevertheless, the media still wears the verneer of an educator. That is misleading. Because of this and political bias, the media has a well-deserved poor reputation.
posted by Defender at 4:30 PM
0 comments
