Re: A comment on our News Networks

["Michael P. Grissom" <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Well, I may have mentioned my little story a while back,
but the broadcast media isn't the only news vehicle with
this problem:

There was an article published in the Washington Post 
some years ago by one of their well known columnists (I 
won't mention her name) regarding an issue that my office 
dealt with.  Her article, of course, was based upon 
"data" from an advocacy group.  The head of my office 
wrote a rebuttal letter and provided data to demonstrate 
the factual inaccuracies in the original column.  The letter 
was addressed directly to the columnist, who wrote back that
she agreed there were many errors but didn't believe there
was any need for a rebuttal or clarification column (which
might, after all, impact her credibility...pardon MY editorial 
comment!).

This stimulated the head of my office enough to call Mr. 
Bradley, at the time the editor in chief of the WP, directly 
on the matter.  Ben noted that it indeed appeared that Mary's 
original column had true factual errors, but that the facts 
were not sufficiently "newsworthy" to justify a correction 
column.  Ben further admitted on the phone (don't bother 
quoting me on this, I will deny everything!) that the WP had 
an "unwritten" anti-nuclear anything editorial policy and 
those were the types of stories that were, in their opinion, 
"newsworthy".

He at least had the common decency to admit that the written
press (at least in this instance) intentionally steered the 
"facts" (by at least not offering a contrary factual opinion) 
to agree with their editorial policy!  But then, that is one 
of the reasons we are taught in school to regard information 
provided by the media [particularly with regards to editorial
columnists] with a critical eye.  This is not new "news" to 
anyone in any country who has studied the role of the media 
in providing information to the public-at-large. It is, in fact,
an element of "freedom of the press", and why such media are
highly susceptible to becoming organs of "propoganda" not just 
limited to radiation issues or governments.

This does not mean there are not media personalities (printed
and broadcast) who are honest and who strive for accuracy in 
reporting.  Their numbers, however, may not constitute a 
majority of those in the business considering the economic
realities (what they perceive sells papers or commercial time)!

*Really*, just an opinion this time...

At 12:30 PM 10/18/95 -0500, you wrote:
>I have been following the thread on the news program and 
>"deadly" plutonium.  Those that think we should try to 
>flood the networks with mail don't understand one basic 
>thing.  They have no interest in accuracy or honesty! ...
-----------------------
Michael P. Grissom
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone:  (415) 926-2346
Fax:    (415) 926-3030