- This topic has 28 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
When we read an article, be it in the New York Times or be it over here, how do we know it is true? Perhaps it is a lie. Perhaps it is a twist of some form of the truth. Perhaps it is partially true, partially false. Perhaps the words themselves are true, but the implication is a lie.
I posit that we in fact do not know. Any news source can, and does, lie. Either intentionally or unintentionally. Nevertheless, falsehood is presented. It is usually very difficult to know when or what is true or not.
The net result of this is that we cannot believe what we read in the press or online. Even on so-called “reputable” sites. Thus one should never form an opinion about various people or things based on the news one reads.
Its so true,
Does the State of Montana actually exsist? Is Obama a real live person or is a figmant of the New York Times imagination, just like the comics?
when we read something on a reputable site, we depend on their reputation. The New York Times, and most newspapers, have standards of journalism that are relatively high. They do not publish hearsay, they do not publish information that can not be verified by two sources. They have a long history of doing that, so their readers have come to TRUST what they read, based on their long and faithful adherence to those standards.
Ocassionaly misinformation does get published, but a legitimate journalistic source will seek that out and print a retraction.
Interpretation is a different story. You ask two Jews their opinions, and you will get at least three opinions. The same can be said of those who interpret the news.
In short, we believe what appear to be facts we read in our newspaper because the journalists and editors have been trustworthy in the past.
I’ve read The Times on a daily basis, and there wasn’t a single day I found where a large majority of the stories weren’t riven with implicit lies.
I always take any story I read, whether on this websites news section or in the mainstream media, with a grain of salt. Er, make that a large dosage of salt. For the very reasons mentioned in the OP.
I don’t think I would believe the NY Times if they said it’s Wednesday night right now.
Ocassionaly misinformation does get published, but a legitimate journalistic source will seek that out and print a retraction.
The only question is, on which page do they publish that retraction?
I heard a journalist say how they were taught in journalist school that their job is to promote peace… No it is not! Their job is to report the news. That’s it.
Journalists task themselves with making everything ‘equal’. That is a corruption of the true ideal of reporting exactly what you see, without regard to your own opinion or judgement. They are doing the opposite.
The main reason many jounalists report biased news against Israel is because of terrorism. Since the reality is biased one way, they have to bend it the other way — to make it ‘equal’.
I am very surprised that you would say that here. If I am coming to this particular “trusted” website then I am also trusting the editor to check out the information before he posts a story. As far as the NY Times is concerned. Although I don’t approve of the anti-Semitic positions they take, I do believe they are not a “rag” paper and they do check out their stories and sources.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions as we have seen here in the CR, and as we all have learned people will choose to believe what they choose to believe whether it is true or not. People will also choose to ignore the truth no matter how much proof is given and how many people confirm the story. That is human nature, there is nothing we can do about it. We can only work on ourselves, our own middos, and our own way of thinking and improving.
Let’s just take the President for example. No matter how much or how many of us said “he just doesn’t have the experience necessary to run this country”. Jews refused to listen and believe the truth; he had so much Jewish support even though the other ticket were firm and documented supporters of Israel. When he first became president it was obvious to those who did NOT support him that he favored the Palestinians and he was bad news for Americans when he apologized to the Arabs for “former administrations’ treatment” of the Palestinian people. When he made his first trip to the Middle East by visiting Egypt. Israel is the US best Ally, but he went to Egypt. But that didn’t change people’s minds. It took his announcement to go back to the 1967 borders and the Palestinians asking the UN to be recognized for people to change their opinions of the President.
Oh yes, the Times is very reliable.
ARE YOU BLAZES KIDDING?
They don’t even make an attempt to get stories correct, the entire system is about sensationalism. They exist to sell papers, and they were pretty good at that until the internet came.
Any time there is a story about the frum community, they completely botch it. When it is about the Hispanic community, we just don’t know.
I recall one time when R’ Ovadia Yosef was in the hospital, the papers published a picture of ultra-orthodox jews praying outside the hospital towards his window. Or maybe saying kiddush levana?
Did they bother to find out? They don’t care.
And let’s recall a little story we knew about. Where they portrayed the jewish victim of an arab mob, to be an arab victim of Israeli police!
Did they publish a retraction? I don’t recall, but I assure you it didn’t have the same prominence.
PBA: There was a retraction published to that horrible mistake. Of course, it was in the back somewhere and not run on the front page like the picture had been.
PBA, whether you want to admit it or accept it the NY Times is very careful and they do publish retractions because their legal department is very busy to make sure they don’t get sued. That is a very well known fact. They do NOT have to put any retraction in any place of prominence. That a is NOT the law. And that picture and story came from the Associated Press. It was NOT made up by the Times.
Sure, I didn’t accuse them of doing anything illegal.
I accused them of having no regard for the truth. And I stand by that.
PBA, I don’t disagree with you, but people see the truth from different perspectives.
I don’t see how that has to do with what I am saying.
They are guilty of two things:
1. Making large prominent mistakes, and publishing buried retractions.
2. Failing to do proper research to find out anything about the stories they run.
What does that have to do with perspectives?
Jayson Blair–remember him? Prizewinning NYT reporter who actually made up most of his stories? Thomas Friedman, whose “unbiased” position on Israel makes most of his articles seem like fiction? and the list goes on. Staff like that is not an occasional aberration; they are backed by the administration. They are not afraid of being sued; that’s why they have a good legal team.
They have valid sources so when they get something from the Associated Press, to them that is the truth. They are not required to make a full fledged announcement that they made a mistake.
Take any two people and look at the same picture. There is no telling what story either of you will see in it or relate from it. You each see your own truth from your own perspective.
When you have an argument with someone, you each see your own truth and can’t even imagine what the other is arguing about. You know you are right, thats the truth. The other knows that he is right and thats the truth. A third party who hears the issues might see some truth in both your stories and might not even know why you are arguing.
The paper publishes a picture of a Palestinian kid standing and crying in middle of a demolished area. You think propaganda and that’s the truth. To someone else (not in the know) they think “poor kid, what did the Israelis do to him?” and to them thats the truth. If that picture is shown to a Palestinian school, the kids believe the same thing and that’s their truth because that is their perspective. Show it to kids in an Israeli school and they think like you, propaganda and that’s their truth.
Because you are angered about their unfair bias against Israel you are making a general statement about their lack of publishing ethics. That is your perspective on the subject so therefor to you that is the truth. If you speak to a neighbor who is an avid Times fan he might have a different perspective and totally disagree with you, might even call you nuts and that would be his truth from his perspective.
The Times doesn’t just lie about the Middle East. It lies on domestic stories as well as most of the stories it publishes. Some lies are bold and some are subtle.
Aries: I’m not sure why you addressed your comments to me. There may be people who feel the way you characterize, but that wasn’t what I was talking about.
Zeidy78, The New York Times doesn’t have comics. That’s why I read the Journal News.
The “fact” is that most news items have a large element of subjectivity involved. No news source will simply report facts without context, and the context is critical to the interpretation. Even without addressing the subjectivity in deciding which stories to print, which sources to use, etc. Even the wording in a factual statement can have subtle implications that we don’t think about. For example, look at the difference in these two completely factual statements saying the same thing:
“Mr. X was unable to comment about the event due to company policy”
“Mr. X refused to comment about the event citing company policy as his reason.”
Both statements are factual and contain the exact same information, without one world of opinion, but the opinion of the writer comes through just the same.
Bottom line is that I agree with the OP that one must always be cautious when accepting information. Evaluate the sources, and if it’s about something important check multiple sources, and of course as my husband’s Rosh Yeshiva always said (albeit in a different context), “there’s never an excuse to turn off your brain.”
The NY Times and other media of quality (WSJ, Washington Post et al.) do their best to be accurate. [After the NYT infamously captioned the picture of a bloodied young man as an Arab, when in fact he was a Jew, they retracted it and even interviewed the man in question.]
HOWEVER …. bias is a lot more subtle than that. It’s all a matter of a what stories the press chooses to print; who they interviw, what the headline says, and what pictures get printed alongside the story. To protray Israel in a bad light, the liberal media focuses on what they consider to be Israel’s misdeeds, and ignore the good things that Israel does. Conversely, they emphasize whatever good they can find in the Arab world, and play down the evil.
Thus, it is not necessary to lie. The best propaganda sticks to the truth, but selects which truths to tell.
I highly recommend the website honestreporting.com (established by Aish HaTorah) for some really eye-opening insight into media bias against Israel.
The media, especially the Times, editorializes throughout its “news” pages. (I’m not even referring to the Op-Ed pages.)
The same goes for encyclopedias. When I saw how they wrote up Yidden and Yiddishkeit, it made me question any other society they portray. Also, I figure, if they don’t begin to understand the mentality of Arabs today, how can you trust their depiction of ancient people?
Before the grammar police get to me, I would like to point out that I should have written “whoM they interview” (not “who they interviw).
The Times/CNN/BBC are definitely guilty of propoganda and bias as is evident to anyone who reads their paper.
For example, after the recent attack near Eilat which killed 8 hy”d, BBC story headline reads “Israel pounds Gaza after attacks”. Underneath that it said “The Israeli military carries out air strikes over the Gaza Strip following a deadly series of attacks on vehicles in Southern Israel”.
Why is the headline Israel’s response?
“attacks on vehicles”? Who attacked? Why not say after 8 people were killed and others injured?
The Financial Times grouped the attack and the response into one: “Seventeen killed in Israel attacks” Thats outrageous! Notice it doesnt say what, when why or where. Just the who- Israel. Why didnt it say seventeen killed in Egypt attack?
Follow up article said “Israel and Gaza militants trade attacks”. What is this, like trading baseball cards? No mention of cause or who struck first, or of the word terrorist.
Daily Telegraph- Israel launches fightback after militant attack on Egypt border”. Couldnt they have AT LEAST said “Israel launches fightback after militant attack kills 8”? “attack on Egyptian border”???, no, attack on Israeli’s.
NY Times- “Ex-White House Scientist Pleads Guilty in Spy Case Tied to Israel” Israel was in no way accused in the case. The scientist thought he was giving info to Israel. But the headline misleads you to assume the scientist was spying for Israel.
NY Times- “Leak Offers Look at Efforts by U.S. to Spy on Israel”
This goes on and on and on.
yungerman1: These are excellent examples and there are many others. But notice how it is done. The liberal media doesn’t actually lie, they just say the truth in a misleading way.
yovel- Exactly. Which is why they are all guilty of propaganda. (Not to say Fox News is innocent either)
These examples were found on Honest Reporting and other sites.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.