Reaction To My Comments On The Distortion of Will Smith’s Statements Shows Why The Media Has Trust Problems
My aggressive defense of Will Smith (see previous post) in the wake of smear efforts on the Internet drew a reaction that was surprising, even to me. There were many angry letters online and to my contact email. I guess I hit a nerve but I was still astounded by the lack of trust that many readers have toward the media in general.
So let me make it clear. There is a vast difference between people who play games with words, and the majority of people in the news business who try their best to be objective and factual. The problem is that the journalists who exaggerate and become writer-assassins force some people to paint all of us with a broad brush. This is not good.
There is also room for entertainment and gossip columns, but there is no room for distortion and character attack by misusing the facts, twisting the story, and quoting out of context.
In the case of Will Smith, some web sites purposely manipulated his quotes to make him look like what he was not. When these things happen, those of us in the business must be determined to speak out.
I was incensed when I heard about the rigging of Smith’s words.
To those of you who have problems trusting the media, I want to make it clear. This kind of distortion speaks to a callous few who believe that attacking a human being by misquoting and misinformation is just another story and another day on the job.
Larry, I hate to tell you, but the only reason you received so much response to your last column is because you were the only blog on philly.com today.
Shake a tree, and a daily blog from LK falls…
Yepper, Larry, context is quite important…take the following: “The wind knocked Jack off and blew his horse further down the trail”. Context is everything…how about the acting governor of New Jersey? Today, when Cody signed the mandatory HIV testing of babies in the womb at 3 months and the start of the third trimester…seems that Cody said ” We don’t want to see a woman bring an HIV infected baby into this world” OK, did Cody mean he is for more abortions or did he mean it is actually possible to treat HIV in the womb when the baby’s totoal system is connected to the Mom’s system thorugh the placenta? I can’t imagine treating the baby wiothout an effect on the Mom, and vice-versa…were Cody’s code words Code for more taxpayer funded abortions? Oh, and what to do with that pesky aborted baby, placenta and umblical cord with all those stem cells? Hey Chris and Annie, got yer gun, yet?
Babies born to HIV-infected mothers who are treated with anti-retroviral medications around the time of birth are only 1/4 as likely to develop HIV as are babies whose mothers are not treated. This is why there is pre-natal testing.
Not everything is a plot to cause abortions, Jersey Joe.
Larry,
You know good and well big newspapers and major news organizations are guilty of distorting information all the time. Corporate media distort facts and information all the time to suit some of their owner’s wishes who answer to elitist people and other organizations. Proof in point; On all the major newscasts organizations both the internet and television, Ron Paul is rarely mentioned. He is often not even listed in some polls. The polls he has been on, he always leads them…extremely. CNN, FOX, and others have been observed by this reader to shut down polls in a very short time when Ron Paul is winning or wins . Later, they make lame excuses that it is his people who are spamming the polls. This is ridiculous. Anyone with a hint of intelligence knows this is not true. Considering you can only vote one time by that phone and by that computer. Once you vote via that item, that’s it. Plus this is a canidate who has generated more money than any other canidate ($18 million from grassroot everyday people) on both sides of the party, and he is still not treated as a first tier canidate. I have also observed news personalities who interview Dr. Paul tell him to his face that he can’t possibly win. To me this is so unprofesional, bias, and purposefull in undermining him. “The powers to be” are afraid of him winning the nomination because he doesn’t stand for the war, big government, unfair taxes, and taking away our liberties in the farce of so called protecting us. Plus he can’t be bought, and his personal life doesn’t have and any scandals that can be used against him. He is considered a threat to the Republican party. That is why these major news organizations provide free exposure to the other canidates which some haven shown to be finacially broke or near it, except Mitt Rommney who is financing his own campaign from his own personal wealth. Yet, all across the country you see Ron Paul posters, and everyday people from different political parties coming together to support Dr. Paul. Yet the newsorganizations continue to ignore him. But it will only hurt them in the long run. I, myself, and many people across the globe no longer trust these major organizations, expect the Inquirer.
Mr. Kane: You can’t see the forest for the trees. The public’s lack of trust in the media is well founded. What happened to the Fresh Prince has been going on for years.We have been getting distorted, biased reporting from the old media( NBC,CBS,ABC,NY times,Washington Post, etc.) since the days of Walter Cronkite. It flows down from their editorial boards to their everyday reporting. It is not just a few journalists with an ax to grind.You don’t see it because your are in it and have been in it for as long.By the way,I see you are still milking that whole early Beatles thing! Hope you had a great Christmas and Happy New Year.
We all know the majority of the media are left-leaning hacks. Why else is it you don’t hear hardley anything about Iraq lately, because they couldn’t possibly admit that Bush is doing well there with the troop surge, that wouldn’t help their socialist left-leaning candidates that they love so much.
Mr. Kane’s reaction to the overwhelming response on the Will Smith article still did not address why he smeared Mel Gibson. It was either unintentional (which I think he would have mentioned) or a well selected example meant to say the anti semites are really found among powerful conservatives. For example, Will Smith is no Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, men of color who are on the record saying racist and anti semitic things, then had toclarify what they meant even though they were correctly quoted. Some might recall Jackson refrred to New York City as “Hymie Town” and of course Sharpton never apologized for race baiting in the Tawana Brawley case.
However, both men are beyond reproach from liberal journalists who would never risk smearing them, even if the analogy would ring more true.
George,
Are you defending Mel Gibson? Honestly, why do you have to turn this into a black or white issue?
The media has been so far left-leaning and has gotten worse in the past 8 years, will never hear them say any of the Bush Administration policies are working….
I didn’t find out what the interview was about but what reason at all could the name of hitler or any reference to that madman emerge from the mouth of will smith. Was the actor misquoted? Did the reporter take notes or record his interview. There appears to be something missing in this story.
I’m still having trouble equating this story with anything real. The tabloid media in the UK is equivalent to “Entertainment Tonight” in the U.S. We’re not talking about a lot of substance here. And, the political right complains that the “media” is too hard on the Repubs and the Dems complain that the “media” is focusing on them and being too soft on the White House. So, it looks like the “monolithic media” is offending everyone. They must be doing an OK job.
the last eight years have been a disater
that’s why you won’t here the honest media say bush policies are working because they are a DISATER….i hope that answers your question FLIP FLOP MIKE….if you want to here b.s. than turn on fox news or rush rehab…it’s you pick FLIP FLOP MIKE…do you want the truth or just the same old song….
Larry,
There is an eight hundred pound gorilla in the chat room. Plese have the courage to repond to the fair allegation that you smeared Mel Gibson in the defense of Will Smith. This idea that you can preach to row house philadelphia and think we dont get your nuance is very anoyinging, this blog is read by all your liberal friends,and theyve been tautning me that you dont need to repond to liberal bias allegations.
-G
There are no liberal bias problems here. Mel Gibson is a bigot of epic proportions, going backn for years. Will Smith is not.
I am not a liberal blogger, and if you haven’t figured that out, there is something wrong.
That’s the problem in this country. Too many divisions, too much labeling.
Say what you want about me and my perspectives. But don’t label me.
Thanks George
“I am not a liberal blogger, and if you haven’t figured that out, there is something wrong.” - Larry Kane
Well, Larry, something must be wrong with me as I haven’t quite figured that out…would you please define “liberal blogger” so that I and others who correspond with you would better understand what you are not?
For any seasoned journalist or news exec to be “astounded” by the lack of public trust in the press is astounding. Pew Research, a media friendly organization, has documented a 22-year decline in public trust via its annual surveys. The latest one, issued in August, reported that most Americans don’t trust the press; they believe news stories are often inaccurate; that the press does not acknowledge mistakes; and does not care about people they report on.
If that weren’t bad enough, the traditional press has virtually stopped reporting on its own bad poll numbers (including similar poll results from Zogby, Harris, and Gallup). So much for press lectures about transparency and “trusted sources.” This kind of behavior comes from an industry that publishes weekly polls about everyone else. Apparently, some polls are more newsworthy than others; but this is not leadership by example which the press touts for other institutions.
The traditional press (print and broadcast) enjoyed a virtual monopoly over news and information for some 40-50 years. That information monopoly is now collapsing due to shifts in technology like the internet. In other words, thanks to the attributes of monopoly behavior, the press owns a huge piece of its current state including the lack of public trust.
David Shaw, legendary press reporter for the Los Angeles Times, had the temerity to write decades ago that the press was not doing a good job of holding itself “morally accountable for its actions.” Many of his colleagues shunned him for daring to apply the principles and practices of good journalism to the press. Not much changed 30 years later when the NYT appointed its first public editor.
How many journalists mark the anniversary of Eason Jordan’s op-ed piece in the NYT back in 2003 when the then-head of CNN News (”the most trusted name in news”) belatedly admitted to censoring the news of torture, terror and assassination plots out of Iraq under Saddam Hussein for 12 years (yes, years). This staggering admission of censorship and supression of information stirred virtually no qualms of conscience or warnings about trust among the traditional news media.
And it was an LA blogger who challenged Reuters’ use of doctored photos from Lebanon. Why didn’t our trusted sources in the traditional media catch that?
The internet and new media bring their own set of challenges — and they also open up a treasure chest of opportunities. Among other advantages, today’s citizens now have access to more diverse sources of news and information than ever before. And they have access to primary sources of information on a scale never before imagined. Just as important, we now have more competitive sources of news and information, which mean a better system of checks and balances.
George, where was the smear of Gibson?
There must be a new ‘Mike’ on this thread. The 5:42 post is not from the usual Mike.
You got that right, and JR, who is a flip flopper? My views haven’t changed a bit, Dems are still liberal, out-of touch weasels, and FoxNews at least tells it like it is, not sugar-coated for left-wing nuts!!!!
Larry,
Thanks very much for your response. I discovered this site during my Christmas vacation and now look forward to reading it in the the new year. I will give you the same benefit of the doubt that I am willing to give Mel Gibson. I have only read your Will Smith story, so clearly not enough information to label you as a liberal blogger, but it struck a chord with me that you would choose Gibson versus so many others to contrast against Smith. Gibson’s tirade was alcohol fused and thus not similar to someone like Louis Farrakhan who is on the record with outrageous and sober anti semitic rhetoric. Will Smith is no Louis Farrakhan!
Anyway, thanks again for taking your time to respond and for providing this forum for public discussion.
-George
thats for sure, dude