You can't Believe Everything You read in the Newspapers

A general commentary is in order for this day and age. Placing this under the heading of Political Conspiracies appears right, since the general subject matter indicates collusion and an increasing vise upon information.

One of the deepest impressions upon me as a youth was reading the newspapers and Time Magazine from a young age, having lived around Washington, DC from the age of 7 to 10. At that time Sputnik was all the rage and the imputation that the US was behind. But another concept was operating from a basic perspective of family.

Perhaps my mother was deeply impressed as she was from an elite family, when her father said "You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers." Saying "everything," impressed the possibility much of what you read in the newspapers was at least close to the truth. The caveat was to be selective and comb the news more completely to detect what to believe, and to distinguish what was outside the realm of complete reason, logic and analysis.

For today it seems that possibility is erased. Instead a new idea applies to all media, "You cannot believe anything your read in the newspapers." The reason is "spin," or "outright deception." At least in the past there was far more independent editorial opinion, larger news articles deserved commentary. If government pronouncements suggested something amoral or even immoral, editors commented and disagreed with such an idea. We are staring at totalitariansim today, clearly as any approximation of moral judgment tends to be absent from current events. It is all cookie cutter news these days.

Your further commentataries and examples are highly welcome.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by SkipShipman]

That's because the Government controls the media, or at the very least the media is in bed with the Government. Just look at the Newsweek/Afghanistan story from a few weeks ago. The Government told Newsweek to jump and Newsweek asked how high?

Originally posted by SkipShipman
At least in the past there was ar more independent editorial opinion, larger news articles deserved commentary. If the government had suggested computer chips as implants, editors commented and disagreed with such an idea. We are staring at totalitariansim today, clearly as moral judgment is absent from current events. It is all cookie cutter news these days.

Your further commentataries and examples are welcome.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by SkipShipman]

You know, I dont think the news in the past was anymore truthful than it is today. People back then had more trust in the system; they thought themselves savvy to imply that they used their own judgments when discerning what was truth and what was 'spin'. It was just a meme "You cant believe everything you read" to make sure you knew there was truth, when in fact its all spin.

Thats my spin.

Originally posted by Dae

Originally posted by SkipShipman
At least in the past there was ar more independent editorial opinion, larger news articles deserved commentary. If the government had suggested computer chips as implants, editors commented and disagreed with such an idea. We are staring at totalitariansim today, clearly as moral judgment is absent from current events. It is all cookie cutter news these days.

Your further commentataries and examples are welcome.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by SkipShipman]

You know, I dont think the news in the past was anymore truthful than it is today. People back then had more trust in the system; they thought themselves savvy to imply that they used their own judgments when discerning what was truth and what was 'spin'. It was just a meme "You cant believe everything you read" to make sure you knew there was truth, when in fact its all spin.

Thats my spin.

Comment: Please note that I was in the process of editing, having seen that the subject "computer chips as implants," was too specific. I wanted to be more general in the basic questions, suggesting rather amoral or even immoral pronouncements from government. At the same time I wanted to note that editorial outrage is absent these days due to centralized ownership.

If you believe the papers, an SKS is a machine gun and an FN FiveseveN pistol can stop an M1 tank

So yeah, I would take what you get in the media with several grains of salt.
Reporters tend to be shockingly ignorant of the stuff they're reporting on.

[edit on 6/15/05 by xmotex]

Let's face it, news sells. If they wrote it the way it happened, it would be boring and not sell.
Unfortunately, there is entirely too much creativity in journalism today.
Mitch Albom comes to mind (Detroit Free Press writer---wrote about a basketball game he did not attend. wrote about it before it happened. wrote about people who were not in attendance)

Every story I have had personal, first-hand knowledge of was not represented accurately in the newspaper. Not one. Most were not even recognizable.

I don't know who is responsible for this fraud, but it is not fair to blame it all on Bush & Co. It has been going on forEVER and is more likely a product of $$$$$ than the man in the WH.

Personally, I read the comics i the paper (well, actually, I subscribe to online comics. I don't wast my $$ on newspapers.
I get my news online, too, mostly from ATS

It's not just of late that newspapers have 'twisted' truths to suit their or the government's agenda.

My husband and I were both kids during the Cuban missile crisis....we both recall the maps that were printed in a major local newspaper....they were large, full color and intended to be a 'current events' type item for kids to take to school. One odd thing we noticed in later years, though. Cuba seems to have grown since the time of the crisis, and it seems to have gotten closer, as well.

Did the paper simply make a mistake about the size and distance in reproducing those maps? Or were those maps intentionally 'doctored' to make Cuba seem smaller and less threatening? I wonder .....

Does anyone else recall seeing those 'current events' pages? I still have several from the Vietnam era, but have not been able to find the older ones.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Let's face it, news sells. If they wrote it the way it happened, it would be boring and not sell.
Unfortunately, there is entirely too much creativity in journalism today.
*snip*)

Every story I have had personal, first-hand knowledge of was not represented accurately in the newspaper. Not one. Most were not even recognizable.

I agree. If the press didn't "butter up" the news.....then people woudn't even look into it! I think that's sick. I would think that people would want to know the truth and what really hapened, but instead they want the exajerated story. People are too gulable these days.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by CHICKST3R]
ed to remove unnecessary parts of quote

[edit on 16-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

while exageration is rampant among today's media services, It must also be remembered that all media companies are controlled by a limited number of people, and all of them will slant a story, especially a politicaly based one, simply becase they all have their own political agendas. Depending on who is elected and who isn't, many of these companies could lose or gain large amounts of money. I personally think it goes slightly deeper than exagerating for the sake of selling a story. The media is the public's closest relation to the government, making it disgustingly easy for the media to control the public's perception of the government, and the key figures within.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe


Every story I have had personal, first-hand knowledge of was not represented accurately in the newspaper. Not one. Most were not even recognizable.

I have to agree with this. I have seen this occur several times, in small town papers as well as 'big city' ones....even in unimportant stories.

Why does it happen? While some of it may be attributed to 'higher ups' wanting to put a certain spin on some stories, I have a feeling there is something in basic human nature that encourages reporters or editors to tamper with the original story.....maybe they think they will improve it a bit, and then it gets out of hand. ( Have you ever played a game called 'telephone' or 'gossip' ?)

I work for a newspaper and I can assure you that most journalists obtain their information by the most dubious means that would make the most cynical reader bawk!
There are the usual key ingedients, sex, violence and poor moral judgements that makes the readers enraged or aloof.
As said before, it's about selling the product.
What I find odd, is that some of the topics covered on this site would fit into this 'fantasy world' of news and yet, rarely do journalists wander this way.
I've been involved in image 'doctoring' and other forms of showing a view that was not true.
It's common practice to imply a truth that may not be a majority belief.

Originally posted by NoJustice
That's because the Government controls the media, or at the very least the media is in bed with the Government. Just look at the Newsweek/Afghanistan story from a few weeks ago. The Government told Newsweek to jump and Newsweek asked how high?

I agree that the media and the government work together on some level, but can someone tell me why the media focuses on all the bad going on in Iraq and Afghanistan? I mean, we are building schools, getting the people clean water and running electricity and you never see that on the news.

Off the top of my head, I'd say we don't hear about good news because good news doesn't sell. People love to hear about bad things happening to others.
And that is true about Iraq, all these high-profile trials and small town happenings.

I agree with above, bad news sells. Usually it's better to write about the mistakes that goverments or companies make because there can always be an add-on.
A good story usually indicates an end to the subject and we can't have that!!
The 'bad stuff' that may occur in Iraq assists to back up the reasons for certain parties went in there in the first place. It is a subtle way of saying "See... we were right and we're gonna help to get rid of tyrants and trouble-makers!"

The world runs this way and most of the time, it works okay, so stories and reports are 'governed' to keep Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and the the Orient believing the way they always have.
Some may see it as control, some may see it as reporting created by their enviroment.

Originally posted by kholdstare
while exaggeration is rampant among today's media services, It must also be remembered that all media companies are controlled by a limited number of people, and all of them will slant a story, especially a politically based one, simply because they all have their own political agendas. Depending on who is elected and who isn't, many of these companies could lose or gain large amounts of money. I personally think it goes slightly deeper than exaggerating for the sake of selling a story. The media is the public's closest relation to the government, making it disgustingly easy for the media to control the public's perception of the government, and the key figures within.

The point is that the fourth estate if you will really never was any such independent concept, although people in the United States take great pride in the first amendment. When this idea that "you cannot believe everything you read in the newspapers," came to me it was from a passing conversation when a gem of wisdom happened during breakfast. Imagine reading the newspaper on the table as a 10 to 11 year old and understanding it and agreeing with such an understanding. I remember reading Time Magazine and simply liking Senator John Kennedy being young and seeing a chasm that existed while I lived in Washington, D.C. from two years earlier. In my mind when they said he was wealthy, it seemed to me that he did not have that hungry look to be bribed as all the others.

With your help at ATS perhaps this thread deserves some revitalization, when hopefully more insights from an autobiographical perspective and from general impressions in current events can proceed.