Fox News Sunday Comments Re: Minneapolis Bridge Failure 10

[JeffLester]

All,

Watching Foxs News Sunday with Mike Wallace this morning, I found myself bothered by comments made by two guests. In essence, they stated the bridge failure was an engineering problem. Without benefit of investigation, they knew what the problem was. Amazing.

What bothered me more was their simplistic judgement of what I'm sure is not a simple problem. I work in an environment, as many of you I'm sure, where the technical judgement of an engineer is pitted against the economic realities of business. Risk management has become a legitimate vocation for some. Although I believe this is not a bad thing necessarily, it bothers me that people with a bigger voice than mine are more interested in being quoted than being correct.

I don't believe it was any one thing that brought the Minneapolis bridge down. It was most likely a combination of things, unfortunately for those who died or were hurt that day.

Unfortunately for engineers and our profession, two more insults went unanswered. I apologize for this rant, but I've heard these types of comments all to often.

Stepping off the soapbox now...

Jeff Lester, P.E.

 

[debodine]

Speaking of media accuracy, I recall when the Navy divers were called in that Shepard Smith (of Fox News? or is it CNN?) began a report with, "The Navy colonel in command of the divers..." It probably would have behooved Mr. Smith to ask the Navy "colonel" his rank and he would have gotten the correct answer, since "colonel" is definitely NOT a Navy rank.

debodine

 

[kontiki99]

It's the same in aviation. A good thorough investigation by the (US) NTSB usually takes at least 2 years, for a major accident.

The popular press has blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah out there almost immediately.

I discount news paid for by advertisers as generally worthless anyway. I believe that if someone's only source of news is the "free" content on TV and radio, they are truly uninformed.

Staying informed costs money, takes time and effort.

Much of the blah blah blah blah blah is designed to motivate you do something (besides consume product).

Sympathy, frustration and anger are key motivators. Why watch someone spin a story that's going to constantly push your buttons.

I got rid of my last TV in 83. I haven't missed a thing.

 

[csd72]

TV, radio and newspaper news are not there to inform you. They are there to get your interest so they can sell advertising! Hence the sensationalism.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

man i just can't avoid a good media rant.

my favorite Fox story is the one where a bunch of
fired reporters sued Fox for retaliation because the reporters refused to edit an expose on Monsanto bovine growth hormone. They won some money and it was then thrown out at appeal court because Fox is not bound by law to honestly report the news. Fox later "reported" complete vindication from this frivolous lawsuit and proceeded to sue the canned reporters for legal costs incurred.

 

[kontiki99]

Another issue is the press releases presented as news. So little of the content is the result of investigative journalists uncovering the news.

No military operation or unveiling of a new technology or weapon is news.

Then there is happy talk and banter.

As a student, one of my professors had us sit through 30 minute news shows and track the time spend on delivery of actual news stories in 30 minutes of TV news.

What wasn't tracked was commercials, banter, etc. It usually wound up being less than 5 minutes of content. It was more informative to read a single column of the Wall Street Journal's front page than watch TV for 30 minutes.

If you further out the stories of horrific and gratuitous violence disaster and stupidity added in for titillation, the value of a news show was further reduced.

Lately it's a showcase for men’s and women’s fashion, and makeup. How else could you explain a news bill board that has a face on it to promote the show. It's all about good looking talking heads reading what they got off the internet over the air.

TV news is about the illusion of content. Putting something out there that costs nothing to deliver you to ads.

 

[csd72]

"Fox is not bound by law to honestly report the news."

That is scary that they can pretty much include and omit anything they like. That basically means that they are legally sanctioned to sprout corporate propaganda.

There are a number of shows in Australia that often go after big companies that have treated people unfairly. I dont see much of that in the US....

csd

 

[SomptingGuy]

This sad tale of death and destruction has been brought to you by ...

I couldn't stomach American TV news in my years there. Our BBC has many critics, but at least it isn't punctuated by adverts.

 

[debodine]

Regarding the information about the suing Fox reporters in the post by DarthSoilsGuy (actually he calls it a "good media rant" which I like better as a description):

I have read some of the media stories during the founding of the United States and in its early years, and I found that there never really has been an "objective" news media. I am speaking as an industry. Of course there have been the occasional examples here and there.

In the 20th century I believe there was a fairly strong effort to make the typical news media seem more objective, and it somewhat succeeded in convincing people it was "just the facts, ma'am" stuff. How much of it was truly objective is open to discussion.

I know that somewhere around the late 80's and early 90's (maybe prior to this but I am not sure, I grew up believing in Uncle Walter, et.al. as bastions of truth) the old type of news editor who would mark up reporter's stories to take out prejudical or judgemental words and phrases to maintain reasonable objectivity disappeared. They gave way to modern editors who deliberately insert such words and phrases to "sway their audience". That's why modern news reporting is 100% editorial and the inclusion of facts in the report is incidental (and sometimes accidental) to the political story line and the need to grab viewers (for the advertisers) with shock tactics and emotional appeals.

The bottom line is, the media has never, from the beginning of the US until now, been bound any laws about the accuracy of what they print beyong the libel laws. In general, advertisers want to advertise in a medium that has the public trust. Usually that means an advertiser would prefer the medium actually broadcast accurate information, but many advertisers are willing to settle for a medium where the consumers simply "perceive" that medium as broadcasting accurate information, whether or not the information is truly accurate.

So I am not at all surprised by the legal ruling. In fact, it could not go any other way if the First Amendment truly limits the interference of the federal government with the media.

debodine

 

[JAE]

debodine,

I think bias in reporting has been around WAAAY before the 1980's. Uncle Walter was as much a propogandista as anyone today. They were just better at subtlety back then.

 

[IceNine]

I prefer to get my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

 

[csd72]

debodine,

In this story the government is actually allowing the media to excercise censorship.

This is the opposite to the reason why the first ammendment came about.

csd

 

[daubery]

Does anyone have a reasonable opinion on why the bridge did collapse? It seemed rather spectacular over international TV.

Des Aubery
(adTherm Technology)

Best regards,

Des Aubery...
(adTherm Technology -

http://www.adtherm.com)

 

[debodine]

csd72:

You make an excellent point in describing what is actually happening. If I may observe, as we all know from the standpoint of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the government is forbidden to censor the media by the First Amendment. However, there is no positive law in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that forces the government to correct the media. Would that be a reasonable understanding of how the Constitution is applied in this case?

debodine

P.S. I am not a Constitutional lawyer nor do I have any legal training so I hope I don't sound like I am arguing! I like to read from the works of our founding fathers in the hope of passing some of their principles on to my offspring.

 

[csd72]

My point was more along the lines of:

The laws that were invented to prevent censorship by government, are now being used as a legal shield to allow censorship by news corporations.

Cant get any more ironic than that.

The problem with law is that often the spirit of the law is ignored as long as the letter of the law is abided by.

csd

 

[JAE]

There are a number of shows in Australia that often go after big companies that have treated people unfairly. I dont see much of that in the US....

Hmmm...csd72, I'd have to take exception to that. Enron, Haliburton, Exxon and other big corporations are commonly crucified in much of the media today.

Hollywood always makes the bad guy a mean ole corporate stodgy who is out to make millions off others misery.

While it is true that in the US the media is not legally obligated to report all the news and all the truth if they don't want to...I'd take that condition any day over ANY meddling of the government into what does and does not get reported.

There have been so many historical examples of governments getting involved in controlling, monitoring, approving, you name it, the content of news reporting and many of those involve pretty nasty dictators or tyranical governments.

If one news outlet reports one thing, there will always be counter reports from other outlets to challenge them in a free society. It's happening right now in that I have FREE access to a multitude of news sources from Al Jazeera to BBC to ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC to independent blog sites, to the Wall Street Journal. Freedom is good. And that freedom is freedom from a meddling government.

I feel good that none of these sources are controlled by my government.

 

[kontiki99]

JAE,

I'd say those stories (Enron, Haliburton, Exxon) only break into mainstream media after they cannot be ignored anymore.

If you were a subscriber of The New Republic Magazine, in 1990, you could have read an article speculating on the possibility that Iraq would invade Kuait (they did two weeks later). No joke, I couldn't believe it.

It's not the cheapest source of news, it has very few pictures, their articles contain many words I have to look up in the dictionary.

They do tend to be somewhat LH of center. Still, I cannot recall the number of times I've read about issues in TNR written up no where else, that show up in the mainstream press months later.

I feel it's one of the few worthwhile US political editorial magazines. As I said earlier in the thread, you have to pay and work a bit for good news content.

See

http://www.tnr.com/

 

[JAE]

kontiki99 - I wasn't talking about the "mainstream media"...if you mean TV news or many major newspapers. Those outlets do cast a shadow on any big business both explicitly (with big news stories) and implicitly on a daily basis.

I'm with you on the "pay and work a bit" to get news...from different points of view. TNR has been good in past years but I think its slipped a bit recently....but that's probably some heresay that I've picked up as I don't read it.

 

[csd72]

JAE,

I knew someone would have to hit me with the Enron example. I agree with kontiki99 these stories dont seem to meet the mainstream media until they can no longer be ignored.

But I am curious, why is it okay with you that a corporation excercise censorship but not a government. After all I am not saying that the government should censor in any way but that they should prevent the media from censoring.

I have read indimedia.com on occasion, but who has time to read three independent versions of the news.

csd

 

[JAE]

csd72 -

Here's why:

1. because there's only ONE government and many corporations - I have choice to seek out and hear the many sides of the various corporations. With government censoring information - you loose freedom. Despite corporations censoring THEMSELVES you still have freedom.

2. because government also has the sword. With censorship occuring with government you also have extreme unchecked power - and that takes away freedom.

3. Censorship, by definition: "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds." A corporation has no legal power over me, thus they aren't a censor over me. They only have power over their own dissemination of information. A censor is mostly derived from government.

If I get limited info from Foxnews or CNN, etc., there are competitors out there that will, in a free society, allow me to see the other side of things. In a tyrannical government which sensors information there is no competitor.
I am then limited in my freedom to hear the various sides of any argument.

 

[davefitz]

OK, We've ahd a few months to determine the cause of the collapse. Was it, or was it not , caused by GLOBAL WARMING?