Inaccuracy in Reporting

[Smashing]

I first posted this in the "what did you learn from LG" thread, but moved it here.

The most striking thing I learned was that you simply can't trust the news media for details no matter what the topic. Lonelygirl15 is a case study in how news outlets relied on conventional wisdom rather than research to create a false frame (we've pointed out these errors in the threads about LG in the press). But whether the story is about geopolitics, business, technology, etc., the problem is systemic.
A commercial news delivery system values simplicity and entertainment over the truth. The reason is you have to be able to tell the story in the most entertaining and understandable way possible in the limited time you have between two commercial breaks. Not to mention you usually have to get the story out on a tight deadline.
For people to really understand any issue fully, there needs to be background information. There needs to be point/counterpoint. There needs to be a lot of explanation, and there just isn't time for that. And even if there were time, not enough people would be interested to sit through it all.
And so reporters in the mainstream media don't report the truth so much as a fiction that's based on a true story. They don't do this maliciously, but they don't do it reluctantly either. They do it without thinking, because it's their job: To write a story that fits into two columns of a newspaper, or produce a TV package that fits in a 5-minute segment, and make it entertaining enough that people stick around for the ads.
In the current system, reporters couldn't give us the truth for long without getting fired. Not because the bosses don't want the truth to get out, but because the truth just takes too long to explain--unless the story truly is simple and entertaining, but the important stories rarely are.

[west]

I am not disagreeing with you, but what is it you think the "news media" got wrong in the reporting of this story?

If it is just that they didn't report the details, couldn't you have noticed this in the 30 second news segment you watched before the media reported on LG15 and noticed that that also was less than the complete story?

[Smashing]

I don't mean just that they left out details, but that they did in fact give false details in order to sensationalize the story. This was the first time I knew the story before it became international news, so I had a point of reference to know if they got the story right or not.

What they got wrong, off the top of my head:
CAA, "the most powerful talent agency in Beverly Hills," was responsible for LG. (they weren't, but it plays up the "big Hollywood production" angle)
Lonelygirl15 the character is 15. (she was 16, now 17. easy mistake if you've never watched the show)
Jess Rose is 20 (she's 19. Perfect example of a simple basic fact. No reason to get this wrong, except by saying she's not a teenager it provides more of a contrast)
It was the first time Jess Rose had acted.
The "lowest of low," "shoe-string" budgets, the cost of production was a $130 webcam. (plays up the "poor indie filmmaker" angle)
The creators were "two professional screenwriters" (again, the "industry" angle)
The creators were a doctor and a lawyer (this time leaving out the screenwriter to play up the indie angle)
LG had "millions of fans" or "12 million fans" who logged on everyday to see her, making LG the most viewed thing on YouTube (just general exaggeration of the numbers).
Those fans were geeks who had a crush on her, and they felt shocked and betrayed after the unveiling (generalized assumption to play up the conflict, and to not so subtley make fun of people who watched the show, which obviously didn't include the reporters).
The show went on to great success after the unveil (depends on your definition of success).
Forgive me for not citing the sources of all these various mistakes--unlike the journalists, I am not being paid to write this. But for some of the specific articles, links are in the "IMS in the media" section of the forum.

[curiousgeorge]

Thanks Smashing and I think this dovetails well with your post about Time's choice for the cover. With all the information "sources" out there, we as consumers of information are in still in a quandary. What is the quality level of these sources of information and who to "believe"?

The most obvious example of this is the well intentioned Wikipedia. AFAIK, this source has been outlawed for most academic papers as a reference, despite it's amazing breadth and general accuracy. But not "accurate" enough, despite an overall very high level of quality.

I don't want to go on a political rant, but if you think about the Judith Miller fiasco at the NY Times the problem is systemic. The ramifications of this kind of disinformation is staggering. Growing up, I never had the mistrust of the media that I have now. The irony of the quantity of information available now is not lost on me. How is the average monkey able to sift through all of this and satisfy themselves that they have the "whole story"?

I wish our (expatriate) professional Journalist would weigh in on this...

[milowent]

man, i wish we could all go out for a beer and discuss stuff like this.

my dad always told me, and i'm sure many of your parents did too: believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

in many cases where i have had personal knowledge beforehand, i've seen articles mangle the facts in order to fit within pre-ordained story themes. red herrings become headlines, key issues are overlooked. reporters are influenced by what their sources say and direct their attention to. random theories become conventional wisdom: "many people say that ....."

so, i agree with most of smashing's original post. it's not that reporters don't want to report the "truth." instead, the facts are made to fall into the "truth" they already see. people say they read the news to be informed, but they really want to be entertained.

however, i think things are probably BETTER today than they were 20 years ago. if you want to learn the whole story, you can dig for it. most people don't and never will, but if you want to, you can. if reagan or thatcher made some completely inane statement in 1986, you may not be able to find that out easily. would your local paper or news cover it?

hey, i thought mikey really did die by eating pop rocks while drinking coke. who was going to prove it wrong?

now, sources are everywhere, as cg notes. the problem is sorting through the incredible mass of information now available to everyone. think about all the sources about who bree was - silentgay, t, the guy in iowa, jeremy romo -- we were working with raw data, and that's hard work!

just in U.S. politics, the number of blogs and viewpoints on the internet are staggering. you can even find the news sources which match your worldview (i.e., daily kos or atrios for lefties, powerline or the corner for righties), and never have it disturbed. and i won't get into judy miller, but that's a good example of why you shouldn't believe what you read.

i hope we can keep up discussion of this issue as new examples arise in the press (or MSM=mainstream media as bloggers love to call it.)

[curiousgeorge]

milowent said:

man, i wish we could all go out for a beer and discuss stuff like this.

Most excellent suggestion Milo, in vino veritas. Translated to Simian: Yay Beer!

I also agree that I think we are in a better position to be more intelligent consumers of information (Breeniverse, Politics, whatever) than we ever have been before.

My approach is to try to partake of as much as a divergent view as possible to alleviate (impossible to eliminate, IMHO) bias from a single source. I think of the phorum like I do the Rush Limbaugh show . Not a place I would call home, but worth wading into just to stay in the game as it were.

When you combine the sheer volume of data available for perusal (the correct use of this word) with the points Smashing made above, it is indeed challenging to feel as though you are properly "informed". Everything must be processed in context.

Can you imagine being a Dittohead or Strict Phorumite (hee) at this point and only seeeing a VERY one sided view of a particular issue?