- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Reporters are supposed to be accurate and check their facts.Are you for real? Some reporters are lazy and do not report all the accurately. Some would twisted the words to make it more interesting to grab the attention of readers, Some reporters do not tell us the whole entire story, we might hear one-side of the story. Some reporters stretch the truth....
You are right about them being lazy. In the "old days" good reporters pounded the pavement and worked the phones. That is, they got off their butts and went to meet people or visit events in person. They would also make phone calls to verify their facts. Now, many reporters accept the press releases that are handed out to them without questioning the facts. The papers and sites also use attribution of "unnamed sources". In the "old days" that was never acceptable. Every source had to be named either by the person's actual name, by title, or both. If it was "unnamed" or "unknown" it could only be used as background information but it could never be quoted in the story.
A hard news story must be just that--facts only, no opinion. However, there are ways to slant a story while still sticking with the facts. The words that are chosen, the placement of the story, the wording of the headline, the pictures that accompany the story, the facts that are left out; all those things can emphasize a viewpoint.
There are very few reputable pubs or sites that will accept "creativity" (false statements) by their news writers (after they've been found out) but that doesn't mean there is no bias in the news.