Believing what you read...or Where does that pesky comments section actually start anyway?

Just this weekend, a story was released in the paper about someone I know that made me question, again, the ethical and moral positioning of our major news sources in society, how those sources became puppets of idealogy, bias, and prejudice, and because much of the body of news stories is tainted by said idealogy, bias, or prejudice, what the bloody use they are anyway?

I wish that the papers, radio news, and tv news would drop the Victorian idea that the public is too stupid and/or too uneducated to make up their own minds.  All I want to know is what happened, not what the reporter thinks happened or feels about what happened.

Or how the reporter can sensationalize what happened; so s/he can win some investigative journalist prize, write a book about the experience, and be set for life as soon as the movie comes out.

Just the facts, ma'am; just the facts.  Why not just stick to what actually happened?  No fudging, or helping us along to what you think is the correct opinion.  Why not post links to the source documents...an easy feat with the interwebs?  A little dangerous, a la Wikileaks, but better than the public not knowing.  Why not be open, honest, and above board?

Look, there are tons of places one can make her opinion public.  I write a blog a couple of times a week.  It is read by friends and family.  I get to say whatever I like because everybody who actually reads it knows this is my sandbox, my opinion.  That's why they call it a blog.  And, at the end of practically every article written by papers (and bloggers alike) there is a comments section in which everybody gets their say.  Everybody gets to interpret the facts as their personal idealogy, bias, or prejudice supports.  Nice, nice.  Free speech.

But how can anyone interpret anything if we don't really know what happened?   How can we have an opinion about what is being reported if the reporter has already assessed the facts, found the subject guilty, and sentenced her/him to the prison of unwanted notoriety?

Well, the simple answer is we can't.  There ought to be a law about publishing or broadcasting only the facts about which the reporter is certain because we all know just how powerful and far reaching mainstream news reporting can be.  Reporters, editors have the power to vaporize lives and they often swagger about, heady with that knowledge.  And then there's SunTV.  Don't get me started.

News agencies should be held accountable for everything they say -- the truth can only support a more informed society, a more intelligent one.

Yep, there ought to be a law.  Oh wait, there is...