It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by finnman68
Should the media be reporting stories that they have no true evidence on, when they know it would only incite violence across the world, with certain stories, causing deaths,
Originally posted by Tinkleflower
There's a marked difference between media reporting and an individual voicing an opinion on a message board, surely?
The media is obliged to report fairly, and state when rumour is rumour, when a fact is unchecked, when conjecture is conjecture. Message boards have no such obligation, as they are meant to contain opinion pieces alongside fact-based pieces.
The problem as I see it isn't with factual vs. conjecture, but in the methods of reporting contained therein. If something is only rumour - then it needs to be displayed as such. If something has been confirmed, then let us see the sources.
And surely it's a huge leap to imply that our freedom of speech would be forever ruined if the media had checks in place to ensure "fairness" when reporting on a situation?
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I think the biggest problem in the media is that the news gets cancelled everyday for nonstories like the Jackson trial. All this talk about "deepthroat" but no talk about the downing street memo.
As for Newsweek,
While it is bad that they used a crappy source, the story was a real one.
I think that those riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan had more to do with our presence than with the abuse of the Quran.
Originally posted by TinkleflowerSince you're a resident member of The Media, how do you explain the overwhelming tendency to report only one side of a given story? Examples would be Palestine/Israeli victims of violence; US versus Iraqi death counts, etc. What governs these decisions?