Q&A of the Day – Addressing fake news, media bias & my role in exposing it
Each day I’ll feature a listener question that’s been submitted by one of these methods.
Facebook: Brian Mudd https://www.facebook.com/brian.mudd1
Today’s entry... Is on back of my commentary/story on the politicization of Elijah Cummings’s death, in which I was highly critical of the coverage by most news media and touched on several other misreported or non-reported stories from the week. There are several points and accusations throughout today’s entry that I’ll address individually.
Hi Brian, In the car going to work and happen to hear you rattle off a few things that I see differently. You’re part of the news media too!
Guilty as charged. Working in the journalistic, content creation and opinion sides of the business provides me with the perspective of the pervasiveness of bias in the industry. And while there are numerous issues with the state of journalism, news gathering and reporting these days, the most pervasive form of bias in news media is omitting information. Bias is one thing, and many consumers of news are trained to identify it quickly but if you’re never presented with important information, that’s a big problem.
Just because a newspaper or news outlet misreports an incident doesn’t make it FAKE news. I agree that several news outlets misreported the potential active shooter at the Town Center Mall in Boca. In my opinion, they were quick to judgement and acted on a false assumption. That is indeed a shame and a mistake. And unfortunately, the term “Active Shooter” is a real problem in the world in which we currently live in. In my opinion, that’s not FAKE news. That’s misreported news.
Ok fine, call it misreported if you don’t like the term fake news. Matters not to me, and I’d agree with your concerns about the term “active shooter” that seems to have taken on a life of its own. Now, if you’re attempting to impugn my use of the term however, facts are on my side. Here’s the definition of the word fake:
- not genuine; counterfeit.
Is reporting an active shooter situation with at least one person shot not genuine information when it turns out two balloons popped? Sorry, it fits the definition.
So, based on my belief (and I know it’s shared by many), your slant on reporting the story could also be deemed FAKE news. You also report as it’s fact, when in fact... it’s just your editorial.
You make an unquantified statement and proclaim to speak for many? This is the kind of nonsense I get when someone wants to disagree with me but can’t on the issue(s). Give me something specific and let’s dance. There is not a specific statement of fact I made in Friday’s story that I can’t support.
And who makes you or any other news reporter with a microphone or camera (or both), the moral judge and ultimate decision maker of what is FAKE news and what is not FAKE news?
Again, facts are facts. Fake has a definition I shared with you. It’s all quantifiable. Facts and moral authority are kind of two different lanes, but I guess Webster’s Dictionary if you’re looking for a specific answer?