News Media Over-Summarizing?

News Media Over-Summarizing?

This morning I heard that the Supreme Court ruled against Grokster, setting the precednt that file sharing services can be sued. I went to the major news outlets, looking for something with which to search for the actual court opinion, and have yet to find a single article that even mentions the name of the case or both plaintiffs. All of the stories boiled down the case and said that it meant file sharing online was in more danger.

What's with the news media? Is there something wrong with providing basic information? Reading those articles I felt like I'm being spoon-fed an opinion. It feels as if they have someone reading the raw data, interpreting it for us, and presenting pre-digested substance for us to mainline and move on.

Okay, I realize I'm ranting, but it's really frustrating and makes me wonder just how much of our news is spoon-fed to us in this way.
 
Thanks, that's the first one I've seen to mention the freaking case name.

To all you other media sources--How hard was that? 1 sentence at the end of the article so those of us interested in something other than one particular source's spin can actually look up the case in question! Do it!
 

plasmo

Diabloii.Net Member
One of the main points of Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is that an event happens, a few people are actually there, some reporters hear it from them, and then other reporters hear it from them. Most of the reporters only know about the story from a few short, 2nd-to-3rd-hand snippets they obtain. Along the way, the real story gets twisted way out of context. He has some good examples of the process, such as Gore and the internet. It's worth a read just for this (although the humor and some other topics are also good).
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
What's with the news media? Is there something wrong with providing basic information?
If they give you information, you might make up your own mind. Better for them to skip straight to what you should think about it. Plus reporters are generally ignorant of the subject matter and just need to find a headline to slap personal opinion around.

Garbad
 
Garbad_the_Weak said:
If they give you information, you might make up your own mind. Better for them to skip straight to what you should think about it. Plus reporters are generally ignorant of the subject matter and just need to find a headline to slap personal opinion around.

Garbad
I will give you the first two sentences, but can you really expect them to know everything about every subject?


I wonder if this will lead to non-company sharing where the program gets passed around on IRC or AIM.
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't expect them to know everything. I do expect them to use original sources or quotations from those who do know in difficult areas (law, medicine, science) rather than attempt to save space/sensationalize and totally distort the content.

And simple things like providing case names and other basic sources would help.

Garbad
 

Suicidal Zebra

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
This morning I heard that the Supreme Court ruled against Grokster, setting the precednt that file sharing services can be sued. I went to the major news outlets, looking for something with which to search for the actual court opinion, and have yet to find a single article that even mentions the name of the case or both plaintiffs. All of the stories boiled down the case and said that it meant file sharing online was in more danger.

What's with the news media? Is there something wrong with providing basic information? Reading those articles I felt like I'm being spoon-fed an opinion. It feels as if they have someone reading the raw data, interpreting it for us, and presenting pre-digested substance for us to mainline and move on.

Okay, I realize I'm ranting, but it's really frustrating and makes me wonder just how much of our news is spoon-fed to us in this way.
BBC have a story on the case, including a link to the court notes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm

What we have to wonder is just how early the notes were made avaliable.
 

krzyhobo

Diabloii.Net Member
The popular media, at least in North America, has become a disgrace. Not only are the stories spoon-fed to us but we have no way of knowing if they are even accurate. Our current administration has been caught on at least three occasions paying journalists to give a pro-Bush, conservative slant to their stories. I don't mean to make this a partisan issue as it's quite possible that democrats have done the same - I just think it's embarassing that these events are documented and nobody even cares.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
We have no way of knowing if anyone's stories are accurate, unless you witnessed the event yourself and compared it to what was written in an article.
 

KillerAim

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun:

That's one of my major peeves, too. The worst case I can recall dealt with a case involving a parent eavesdropping on her daughter’s conversation with her boyfriend.

The basic facts were that the mother overheard the boyfriend tell her daughter about a crime he committed. The mother then told the police, who used the information to successfully prosecute the boyfriend. The Courts later overthrew the case against the boyfriend due to the eavesdropping.

How did the papers write about the case? “Eavesdropping against law even for parent, court says.â€. The article goes on to say that the court had said that a child has the right to privacy. In forum after forum, people wrote in to complain about how the courts were saying that a parent could not legally listen into conversations their children were having. But that is not the case. What the court really said was that the boyfriend (not the girl) had a right to privacy that was violated by the girl’s mother.

From the actual case:
. . . since it is Christensen's expectation of privacy with which we are concerned, even if Lacey did have a lowered expectation of privacy based on the nature of the relationship with her mother, it cannot reasonably be said that Christensen's expectation was similarly lowered.
Talk about a complete distortion of the facts!!
 

Kawaii

Diabloii.Net Member
Cloud_Walker said:
Welcome to America.

[/toneless]
Welcome to the 21st, 20th, 19th and every other century everywhere around the globe.
[/toneless]

Come on, people. This has been happening since the invention of the rumor. People are lazy and biased, thus you are fed overly summarized biased bullcrap. Duh.
 
Top