It is a shame that lawyers do not think journalistic malpractice is a viable income stream.  Otherwise the sharks would be circling. 

It is not criminal, but it is gross incompetence and fraud.  And it is not surprising any longer.  They scream about Fox, not because Fox NEWS is biased, but because it is fair and balanced.  They level the charge (accusations are easy, but proof is hard to come by), but never back it up.  because they cannot.

They HAD a monopoly and they cannot stand that it no longer exists.

I spoke about this problem before. Freedom of press used to come with the proviso that the press has to try to report the truth.

I don't think they don't try.

I think they don't even care any more.

For most (i.e. essentially all) the media have simply become a way to voice their opinions.

Reporting facts: Politician X (of party Y) did Z.

But there is so much that can be done with it.

If one doesn't like poltician X, one can add "right-wing extremist" to the introduction. Don't let the reader decide whether X's actions justify the category. TELL HIM.

Party Y only has to be mentioned when X did something good and one likes the party or something bad and one doesn't.

And action Z is the most fruitful source of opinion. Here's what can be done with Z:

1. One can change it to something else (i.e. lie).

2. One can tell the truth without giving context.

3. One can report Z as true before reports are out that Z never happened.

Bingo!

The lie is on page 1.  The correction is on A-37.

It's all about fame, glory and money. The media is not so much concerned with the truth. What's sad is that people listen to them even after they find out they lied.

They do wonder why FOX pulls in the audience taking their market share with them. Even the moderate left gets their info there. Only in a socialist fantasy world would a business on the ropes not try to emulate a successful one that isn't. I believe that secretly they hope Obama loses in 2012 so they can have something to report. I know it would drive me crazy if a scoop came in and I can't talk about it because their is a "D" next to the name or involved in the issue. Well two more years (at least) of irrelevance, should strip more of the garbage out of the MSM sewer pipeline.

You do not have the (no) mindset these clowns do.  Clearly scoops are only for ice cream in their dreary little world.

One question I always want to ask journalists is to add one more sentence to the article starting with "usually".

This would be to give readers an idea of whether the reported fact is usual, unusual, important or incidental.

Imagine this reported fact (I made it up):

"Chocolate sold in the United States contains 5mg of acid per 100g."

I have no idea whether that is usual, unusual, important or incidental. For all I know 100g of chocolate always contain 5mg of acid, possibly more, possible less. And neither do I know whether it makes a difference or not.

A while ago I read the disturbing news that the suicide rate in the American army has gone up dramatically since the invasion of Iraq.

Then I found out that the suicide rate of the army is still way below the suicide rate of civilian Americans.

I never found it if the suicide rate among civilians went up or down in the same time period or whether the suicide rate fluctuates with generations regardless of current events or not.

Perhaps there should be law requiring journalists, who are free to say whatever they want, to add such relevant facts to everything they write, just like producers of random products, who can sell whatever they want, have to tell customers about the facts relevant to the item.

And if journalists disagree, we should make it law that they have to shop in stores that sell food without expiry dates. It's only fair if important information is missing while somebody enjoys his freedom, right?

You have to crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run.  The symptom you describe is as old as news itself.  If it bleeds, it leads.  That is really non-partisan for the most part.  Using information out of context to sell the news.  They did it with Cyclamates and Alar.  It does a lot of damage to the producers, just as any scaremongering does.  And does not seem to be directed towards a philosophy other than money.  Theirs.

An Israeli in Paris saw a pit bull attacking a toddler. He killed the pit bull and saved the child's life.

Reporters swarmed the fellow. "Tell us! What's your name? All Paris will love you! Tomorrow's headline will be: "Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!"

The guy says, "But I'm not from Paris.

"Reporters: "That's OK. Then the whole of France will love you and tomorrow's headline will read: 'Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!'"

The guy says, "I'm not from France, either."

Reporters: "That's OK also. All Europe will love you. Tomorrow's headlines will shout: 'Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!'"

The guy says, "I'm not from Europe, either.

Reporters: "So, where ARE you from?

The guy says, "I'm from Israel.

Reporters: "OK. Then tomorrow's headlines will proclaim to the world: 'Israeli Kills Dog!'"

We use that one for states' rivalries.  Usually a North Carolina Man saves a child (Tar Heel Scum kills beloved pet dog) or about North and South (Damn Yankee mauls adored pet).  It is funny because of its truth (and the fact the rivalries are usually good natured - at least here).

You have lots of good-natured versions of European rivalries.

That's why the worst of racism America has encountered was slavery and lynchings which the majority of the country where willing to go to war to stop.

The racism we have in Europe is so severe that it took non-European troops to stop it because the few Europeans willing to fight against it don't have a chance.

When your south said it would rather leave the Union then abolish slavery, your north went to war.

When our Germany said it would murder all the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals, most of Europe decided to give Germany what it wanted.

As we have seen in the other thread, the people who want to murder Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals are the same who want to enslave blacks. But they enjoy different degrees of support among those who claim to be against all of these things.

In the Arab world, they are heroes.

In Europe, they are considered oppressed and in need of justice.

In America, they are being fought and forced to surrender.

I think a problem currently with the media is that there is an over saturation of information.  People don't care or don't have the time to investigate which piece of information is factual or is more factual than another piece. 

Also most individuals have lost their crediabiltiy/intergrity unlike way long ago you could rely on an individual to get the story and get it actual factual.  Now, its more about the story than about being crediability/intergrity.

Media 'journalists' (even Fox's in some cases), consciously or unconsciously, think of themselves as the media equivalent of professional athletes or Hollywood actors.  And their 'owners' behave a lot like professional team owners.

Analogous sorts of deceptions (e.g., steroids, dirty refs, etc.) such as have bedeviled professional sports seem to be bedeviling journalism these days.

I disagree.  I think people are not only capable of sorting wheat from chaff but are actually doing it.  The 'saturation' argument is the one used by the entrenched media to justify their requests for subsidies & special 'authoritative' designation.  I'm a Jeffersonian when it comes to this - I much prefer the chaos of too much free information to the tyranny of too little.

I agree most are capable, but think most are not going to make the effort.  That is what the MSM is also banking on.  That is why Fox and others like them are so important.  To keep the Dan Blathers in check.