PERFECT EXAMPLE of Media Misrepresentation

I pay close attention to opportunities of when I can share with non-conspiratorial types that our media LIES TO US!! Here's one that I hope you will consider sharing.

(The subject is Obama's birth but THIS IS NOT a debate about that - please consider the point of the thread before jumping on which side you favor - the thread is about media bias and lies.)

From CNN: Before birther row, Lt. Col. Lakin racked up medals as flight surgeon.

Lakin is among 27 percent of Americans who doubt or deny that Obama is American-born, according to a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. They compose the birther movement, which demands that Obama present a birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him in 1961.

Obama has made public an unsigned "certification of live birth," which birthers claim is not the same as a birth certificate. However, two Honolulu, Hawaii, newspapers have presented birth announcements for Obama, and the state's Republican governor has confirmed that the president was born in the Aloha State.

There are two main issues that CNN is purposefully using to mislead the reader.
The "Republican" governor, making you feel that because he is in the opposing party he must really be in favor of the truth here and not jumping on the party bandwagon. But in reality the governor of Hawai'i has no say in this. The group who decides is the the Chief Elections Clerk, and he says Obama never provided the appropriate documents.

The other main issue, and OUTRIGHT misrepresentation, is CNNs use of "two Honolulu, Hawaii, newspapers have presented birth announcements for Obama" as a positive indicator that he was actually born there; however the two newspapers list DIFFERENT HOSPITALS as his birth place!! This is fraud if you ask me... and it certainly is not justice.

Remember, this thread is about the media - please think about that before jumping like a ravenous puma over whether you are a birther or not. Thanks!


(MODERATORS: This DOES NOT belong in Political Conspiracies - it is about the mainstream media bias and misrepresentation of facts; please think twice if you feel it should be moved there.)

edited to change title slightly.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Thermo Klein]

So... I thought it was a perfect example, and that one person that starred me I guess

....

I'm not sure if even the ghost of Ronald Reagan would argue against the existence of media editorialism or bias. It definitely exists on both sides of the fence. I'm a much bigger fan of media ineptitude because it's a bit harder to find and way more fun to point out!

Sometimes I wonder if they're purposely trying to mislead or just overworked, incompetent, or both. Not everything is nefarious or intentional, but it is good to always notice and question

What good mentioning Republican did is beyond me. Are birthers all Republicans or something?

More like some reporter was just in that zone label zone. Can't really tell. I don't see where it sways the story or would sway anyone's real opinion one way or another anyway, whether the governor has a "say" in certifying anything or not. Seems more like fluff to me, but your theory could be correct. Frankly, I don't think the reporter or CNN really care.

One of the newspapers might have just made a flat out error. This is again probably not an attempt to sway. CNN is just reporting established facts. Two newspapers reported it. That or whether one made a mistake or not really isn't really relevant to this story, is it?

The story is more about his background and what his choices and consequences were.

Just my .02.

reply to post by Hefficide


I agree that bias is accepted and known, but I think most people generally trust certain sources like CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, etc.

That CNN actually twisted the facts, using them to support the exact opposite of the truth, I think most people would find that surprising.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Sometimes I wonder if they're purposely trying to mislead or just overworked, incompetent, or both. Not everything is nefarious or intentional, but it is good to always notice and question

Good point. I wouldn't want to trust a source that could make such a mistake due to lackadaisical research either though!

reply to post by Thermo Klein


I do agree with your concept. I would just hope that most people, in this day and age, are wise enough to understand that MSM outlets are all owned by conglomerates and corporations. That being so it is almost a sure bet that somebody is going to spin some number of stories in order to benefit the parent company. I like to think that we, as a culture, globally, all kind of catch onto this concept and act accordingly as weigh the merits of the news.

reply to post by Hefficide


I think nearly everyone I know has NO CLUE that most sources are owned by a very few with a very specific agenda - I feel most people trust the news as if it were really that, News!

"As long as I get my Starbucks and have a roof over my head them politicians can do whatever they want"