PFT: USA Today warps Brady’s words on White House visit

[PatsWickedPissah]

I wonder if we "much of the public" have finally reached a turning point in understanding how the media has always operated.

Quote from the much missed Michael Crichton,
"the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

The USA Today's latest wet streets cause rain article.

 

[SalemPats]

The journalistic integrity of the media is dead. We should call them Entertainment not News

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

I wonder if we "much of the public" have finally reached a turning point in understanding how the media has always operated.

Quote from the much missed Michael Crichton,
"the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

The USA Today's latest wet streets cause rain article.

I can testify for Michael Crichton's quote. Myself and friends were in stories on a little known topic. The first article had issues, but it was the boiler plate print reporters would use hundreds of times. Print media is hurting with staff cut past the bone, leaving people who often don't know much about what they are reporting. It's easier on an obscure topic to put a bias into it.

 

[FCB02062]

Benjamin Franklin. Get a grip.

Easy there snowflake...

 

[Clonamery]

Easy there snowflake...

It's "cupcake" to you, Master of the Ridiculous Drunken Comments in the GDT.

 

[1960Pats]

The journalistic integrity of the media is dead. We should call them Entertainment not News

They aren't entertaining either.

 

[captain stone]

USAToday, NYCrimes, Washington ComPost, Boston Glob, et al = Garbage.
Won't ever buy them, won't ever click them.

 

[meatface]

You should be liable to be sued for that type of BS. **** the media.

Libel is difficult to prove, you have to prove that they did it maliciously with full knowledge that the statement was untrue. That is very very hard to prove, especially when you are just interpreting what someone means

 

[NashuaPats]

This reminds me of how Ted Wells made McNally and Jastremski look guilty. He parsed out comments from innocent conversations from different months, listed them in the order he wanted them to be read, while providing his own narrative. So deceitful and unethical. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[shmessy]

Easy there snowflake...

What are YOU doing on a Patriots fan website, troll?


.

 

[Koma]

Back in October, USA Today ran a headline about how Brady "whiffed" at the opportunity to speak out about domestic violence. Brady's actual comments were the opposite of what the headline claimed.

USA Today has figured out that a negative headline about Brady or the Patriots gets attention, even if the content of the article doesn't support the headline.

 

[aluminum seats]

Guess they got called out on it because they corrected the article and headline.

The clarification is still misleading.

 

[mosslost]

USA Today warps Brady’s words on White House visit

 

[Gumby]

I can testify for Michael Crichton's quote. Myself and friends were in stories on a little known topic. The first article had issues, but it was the boiler plate print reporters would use hundreds of times. Print media is hurting with staff cut past the bone, leaving people who often don't know much about what they are reporting. It's easier on an obscure topic to put a bias into it.

But this type of journalistic malpractice goes WAY WAY back. It is not now and never was caused by "personnel cuts". It is a basic journo school teaching point I think. These folks got into journalism with the thought that they would " make a difference" or "change something" so that intent leads them down the road of bias journalism.

Back in the 70s I was a paperboy. Every morning I would read the paper front to back before delivering. After a while, I made it a point to skim the headlines and first couple paragraphs, because I always found the FACTS in the last paragraphs (often contradicting the headline and the first paragraph lead and usually on pg 12 of a story starting on pg 1). In my less jaded youth, I just thought they were stupid writers or attention grabbing whores. Now I believe that was the opinion journalism style of the day.

Nowadays opinion journalism has gotten more outrageous / more willing to totally discard facts, instead of just burying them, or even promulgate blatant lies because the media is so splintered that each outlet is already talking to mostly the true believers of their opinion category (wacko, left, or right). So most of their readers don't want to hear truth, they want predispositions validated.

 

[Observer]

Libel is difficult to prove, you have to prove that they did it maliciously with full knowledge that the statement was untrue. That is very very hard to prove, especially when you are just interpreting what someone means

Time to change libel laws and make lying to the public a crime

 

[meatface]

Time to change libel laws and make lying to the public a crime

supreme court cases have ruled it has to be malicious and its not likely to be overturned, its just super hard to determine when someone is intentionally lying, ignorant or just being a **** head. It might seem satisfying if Brady could sue ESPN or something for false reports but what happens if the NFL can sue this site for saying something about them that isn't 100% proven?

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

@Gumby

No disagreement. I do think the economy of the print media has made the problem worse.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I think the internet has allowed the world to see how bad their media is. How many columns do you see where right below is a comment pointing out inaccuracies in the article? Now some outlets want to ban comments because they keep getting embarrassed.

20 years ago you wouldn't have been able to find the full quote.

 

[NormZauchin]

But this type of journalistic malpractice goes WAY WAY back. It is not now and never was caused by "personnel cuts". It is a basic journo school teaching point I think. These folks got into journalism with the thought that they would " make a difference" or "change something" so that intent leads them down the road of bias journalism.

Back in the 70s I was a paperboy. Every morning I would read the paper front to back before delivering. After a while, I made it a point to skim the headlines and first couple paragraphs, because I always found the FACTS in the last paragraphs (often contradicting the headline and the first paragraph lead and usually on pg 12 of a story starting on pg 1). In my less jaded youth, I just thought they were stupid writers or attention grabbing whores. Now I believe that was the opinion journalism style of the day.

Nowadays opinion journalism has gotten more outrageous / more willing to totally discard facts, instead of just burying them, or even promulgate blatant lies because the media is so splintered that each outlet is already talking to mostly the true believers of their opinion category (wacko, left, or right). So most of their readers don't want to hear truth, they want predispositions validated.

Not just in the 1970's. You can go to any era in the history of print journalism and find egregious examples of outright lying, baiting the reader, ignoring the facts, etc. By the way, the first published newspaper in the United States was the Boston News-Letter, beginning in April, 1704. I believe their sports columnist was one Ichabod
Borges.

 

[Gronkowski123]

Tom has to go to the White House!!! ESPN media meltdown!!!