Powered by LiveJournal.com
Modern News Abominable.
Recently, charges were made against our adoption agency, CWA (Christian World Adoption.) Horrified, CWA sent their lawyer to investigate and discovered that none of the alligations were true. (One made no sense anyway, and the other they had paperwork showing it was not the case.)
CWA's lawyer then had an hour long interview with CBS News, in which CWA laid out their side of the story and the evidence showing that they were innocent.
CBS ran the story against them, and not one second of their hour long interview was aired. None of it. They just showed the people making the allegations.
I knew the news was bad, but I had no idea it was this bad.
Here is their statement on the matter.
CWA is asking for prayers to help support them and their wonderful mission during this difficult time.
Of course, Jagi. So sorry.
They cynical side of me says that if your group were called "One World Adoption" there would never have been a story run. Sometimes I hate the media. A lot.
Hope that the agency will be very aggressive about pursuing CBS on this.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 03:43 pm (UTC)|| |
THey are doing their best.
I'm praying to know that lies cannot taint the good works they do.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 03:13 pm (UTC)|| |
I know nothing about this story or CWA, but it sounds like par for the course when it comes to media coverage. Read enough of the stuff at GetReligion.org regarding the intersection of media and religion and it can be enough to drive you batty.
I will certainly pray for this organization. When good and holy groups do their deeds -- especially for Christ -- the devil is confounded. My frustration with the incompetence of news outlets must be nothing compared to that dark angel's frustration with CWA...a frustration that leads to an incoherent rage and slanderous accusations. The devil's madness is driven by the fact that despite being the prince of this world and having behind him (in many eras) armies and kings and intellectuals and yes, even news outlets, he still can't win.
Stay strong, CWA -- you must be doing something right.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 03:42 pm (UTC)|| |
We've been dealing with CWA for four years now, and I am often impressed by their diligence and devotion to ethics and children.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 09:19 pm (UTC)|| |
I've given up on most journalism. It's twisted, inaccurate, and biased. When I took a journalism class many years ago, I was taught to report facts without bias or my personal viewpoint. It seems every story today is spun to incite against or support a certain ideology. It sickens me. I've taught our children to question everything and look for several different viewpoints before accepting a piece of news. Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 09:37 pm (UTC)|| |
My dad also taught me "not to believe what you read"...but not how to do it.
I used to nod knowingly, compliment myself on my discernment, and be pleased that everything I read happened to be true.
Of course, it wasn't, but I had not learned how to question it.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 07:33 am (UTC)|| |
Sadly, I'm not certain there is any one source I can point to with authority as unbiased, truthful, and accurate. It takes a great deal of research to ascertain the truth. It seems the majority would rather believe what sounds pleasing to them rather than work at discovering the truth.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 01:41 pm (UTC)|| |
I think the key to teaching this is to show two sides of the same story without telling the children which one is "correct" ahead of time.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 10:15 pm (UTC)|| |
I have my degree in print journalism and was taught the same thing. We even had discussions on whether or not journalists should be SO detached as to not vote in general elections. I guess such noble sentiments don't turn out to be as fun in real life as whipping up some good, old-fashioned scandals.
I heard someone say once to look at how general media cover the areas on which you have a lot of knowledge. If you find bias, spin, inaccuracy, over-simplification and even lies, then ask yourself: on subjects that I DON'T know, why do I so casually trust these same publications?
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 10:33 pm (UTC)|| |
Very nicely put.
This whole thing makes me sad. I used to really admire journalists.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 07:46 am (UTC)|| |
Journalists were the heroes and heroines of my childhood. They were fearless in pursuing truth, seeking justice, and holding politicians' feet to the fire. They were people of integrity and character. No longer.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 07:43 am (UTC)|| |
Excellent point and one I have found to be true. It's not my nature to be cynical, but I have come to the point of not believing any single account put forth by media.
|Date:||February 17th, 2010 11:09 pm (UTC)|| |
This is unfortunately nothing new. My father was a press photographer from the 1950s to the 1970s. He would watch the news and say "that guy never said that; I was there!". As Dennis says, somewhere down the line, our news is being paid for by advertising and what they want is what shows.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 05:32 am (UTC)|| |
My experience also
I responded to this in the "slouched-hat guy's" LJ but I shall add here that in newspaper articles pertaining to a court case about two decades ago and some other incidental news reports of events to which I was a witness, I was never once quoted correctly in a story nor were those people of whom I had first-hand knowledge.
TV discussions and radio programs in which I was interviewed "live" were accurate [that is, full sequential segments without cherry-picking cuts], as were magazine featured articles, but newspapers were exceedingly deficient in thyis respect.
That said, I have been accurately quoted by the same papers involved on a scant few other occasions.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 01:54 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: My experience also
When I was working for a weekly newspaper in Indiana I would regularly hear from folks I interviewed about their past experiences of being misquoted or misrepresented. It seemed like an epidemic and made me, hopefully for good, kind of paranoid about misquoting people or using their voice to draw false conclusions.
More journalists need to take a quick read of their own stories and put themselves in the shoes of the real people that they are quoting and ask: "If this was me, would I feel used by this reporter?"
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 01:33 pm (UTC)|| |
A friend of mine was once watching a Spanish station newscast and saw CNN reporters in the back of the shot throwing money to the crowd to get the reaction they desired.
When they were protesting something at the local college in the early 70s, they were being a bit too polite about it for the photographer's case. He ginned up the crowd like a cheerleader and got some memorable shots. He was an award-winner.
I can hardly believe that. Isn't the CBS afraid that the CWA will sue them and demand not only a counterstatement but also financial compensation? It should be easy to do so, if you have all the proof at hand.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 01:35 pm (UTC)|| |
It happens all the time. My friend who used to do regular press releases complains about this bitterly. She reports that CNN was the worse, pressuring her and then trying to trick her into saying only what they wanted to report.
She said that the only media group that interviewed her in the old fashioin style and did real reporting was the Christian Science Monitor. Many of the rest just published her press release--written to say whatever she wanted it to say--as news.
|Date:||February 18th, 2010 02:01 pm (UTC)|| |
One of the journalists I respect, for the most part, is John Allen -- precisely because he really does seem to care about getting to the truth, not the pre-conceived story line. His writing is, at times, painfully accurate and devoid of the common "bombs" and innuendos that are thrown into stories for ratings.
He's a niche reporter: Allen works for the National Catholic Reporter, a very left-leaning publication that covers Catholic, political and social justice issues. I avoid almost everything they write except for Allen's work. Unlike their other writers, it's hard to discern where his true leanings are...isn't that refreshing for a journalist?!
|Date:||February 19th, 2010 12:12 am (UTC)|| |
|Date:||February 19th, 2010 12:13 am (UTC)|| |
and NPR... sorry for the double-post, but your blog thing isn't working correctly.
CS Monitor and NPR did a good job.
|Date:||February 19th, 2010 12:34 am (UTC)|| |
(I think that was my interviewed friend commenting. ;-)
|Date:||February 19th, 2010 12:44 am (UTC)|| |
Yes. CS Monitor is print and NPR is radio. NPR would do the radio interview in person. Other stations would interview over the phone.