Glenn Reynolds on Bias in Reporting

When I was a little boy, I read a book on magic that explained how to perform some simple tricks. Then I decided to put on a show. My first trick was “mind reading.” Unfortunately someone else must have read the same book because I was exposed as a fake immediately. I was humiliated and my reaction was defensive and angry.

This old memory reminds me of the press as it’s faked and posed pictures and stories are revealed to an increasingly cynical audience. The reaction is not: “thanks for pointing this out, we welcome our readers’ help when we make mistakes.” Instead, it’s like mine when I tried to hoodwink my friends: anger and denial that I was faking.

Glenn Reynolds makes the point well when he states that the media can no longer depend on a public that is totally dependent on it for its news. That can be gulled into believing virtually anything as long as it’s accompanied by pictures.

Excerpt:

We've seen this kind of fakery before, of course, and not just where Israel is concerned. The Boston Globe ran fake rape photos purporting to show U.S. troops raping Iraqi women. The photos turned out to come from a Hungarian porn site. Nor does the fakery stop with photos. Rutten's own L.A. Times ran a nasty piece about Paul Bremer's departure from Iraq, saying that he didn't even give a farewell speech and suggesting that he was afraid to look Iraqis in the eye. In fact, Bremer had given a speech that was nationally televised in Iraq. As columnist John Leo observed in response to this bit of bogosity: "What's new about the press is that so many people who follow it with a critical eye now have an outlet to howl about inaccuracy and partisanship. The big media used to be able to shrug off critics like this. Now they can't."



No, they can't. But I have to say that I'm disappointed with their response nonetheless. I had hoped that increased scrutiny from bloggers would make the press more honest, but so far there's no sign of that. And bad or dishonest reporting is destructive and unpatriotic (note that reporting bad news honestly is not, a distinction that dishonest media defenders sometimes try to elide). Can a free press survive if the public concludes that it's in the business of purveying politically motivated propaganda on behalf of civilization's enemies? And, if this kind of thing keeps up, will people be able to resist coming to such a conclusion? The press often responds to business scandals by noting that misbehavior by businessmen is likely to undermine support for free enterprise and lead to public demands for free enterprise. I fear that the same dynamic may lead to reduced support for a free press, and to demands for government regulation of reporting in wartime.

Read the whole thing…