The Onion is a satirical "news" site that pokes fun at top stories circulating around, lampoon-ees ranging from politics to religion (you know, those things you aren't supposed to discuss in polite social circles), science to Wall Street. I usually catch up with their latest "story" on Facebook, where convenient links to "The Onion," in proper satirical fashion, look like real news sites. Sometimes FB cruisers get "caught" by "Onion" stories, thinking them to be real, and posting indignant commentary. A "friend" points out the nature of the story, and the errant poster does one of those Emily Litella "Never Mind" retractions. Occasionally, though, the protesting poster sticks by their "real" critique to a story written as entertaining "fake news." I say all this to take us to a discussion of First Amendment freedoms and the "mess we's in" concerning "fake news."
It is coming into vogue to label factual stories written by responsible journalists as "fake news" if one simply doesn't agree with them. And, also, fictitious stories or blatant opinion, neither backed up by facts, and written by fantom or unnamed authors, are given a pass as legitimate articles. We are told this is one way a foreign power attempted to influence elections--by posting paid "stories" on Facebook--lots of them--that had no basis in fact, but that were made to appear quite genuine, and cast by a "real" news source. It is important to note, here, that more than one political party and various religious "lobbying" groups are using this technology. Just saunter about Facebook and look at what liberal, conservative, evangelical, progressive, Druid, NASCAR, NRA (you name the cause) are posting as "fact," and you will see hundreds of bogus stories being posted right alongside the "real deal" news sources such as the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, or The Wall Street Journal. I did "Google" fake news sources recently, and quite a long list came up of sites and origins some panel of "experts" has identified as illegitimate, or at the very least, pure opinion masquerading as news. Google "fake news sources," and see what I mean.
As one with a degree in journalism and communications, I have a special respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. I accept as the journalist's creed the slogan from the masthead of The Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness." A free--and legitimate--press is foundational to a free state. "Legitimate" means writing stories based on as much fact as the reporter can glean using the "mantra" of the five Ws and the H--Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Quotes must be exact and not paraphrased; sources must be corroborated with at least one other source. Any "theory" or conjecture must be clearly labeled as such, but was never admissible in a news story before the days of "New Journalism" as advanced by Thomas Wolfe, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, et. al. Editorials should be properly relegated to the editorial page or the opinion page opposite it (hence "op ed"). Readers should know beyond doubt whether they are reading a news story or an opinion piece. Those lines are increasingly blurred, even in some "real" newspapers, and on TV, all bets are off, basically. Still, there are great varieties of genuine news sources practicing the profession of journalism. Personally, I try to read three or four newspapers a day--The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The New York Times, The Washington Post (all of which I subscribe to), and as much of The Wall Street Journal as I can read online "for free." I also like to listen to NPR and the excerpts of the BBC which they feature, or occasionally I listen to BBC America on my satellite radio. When cruising Facebook, I very carefully examine the "byline" of any "story" posted or linked by one of my friends. Unfortunately, some of my "friends" are far less than discriminating as to the legitimacy of the sources of stories they post, so I must be! And, I never "believe" a story until I have found it reprinted or followed up by another legitimate news source.
Why am I harping about this? Several reasons:
1. Accurate, truthful information is essential to forming opinions, voting my conscience, and even in responsibly leading my congregation to engage in the kinds of justice and peace seeking ministries to which Jesus calls us. We need to be properly informed, people! And nobody is doing the screening for us!
2. Journalism and the First Amendment are under attack in our time, and not just from politicians and presidents. When people become less discriminating in their "taste" for news and information, "wolves in sheep's clothing" may slip in, sometimes to intentionally misinform or sway opinion in accordance with a selfish, power, or profit motive, sometimes just to sell something. In these days of the Internet and social media, if a site gets lots of "hits," it becomes an advertising and "click bait" cash cow, whether the content of the site is real or total drivel (or worst-case, intentionally deceptive).
3. I fear there are parallels between the erosion and denigration of news sources and how people will react to and "hear" something that is an essential "source" of my Christian faith--Scripture. How can I possibly preach and teach the efficacy and message of the scriptures, helping my congregation extract and apply its inherent truths, in a world where less and less printed matter is deemed trustworthy? And, because I am a liberal interpreter of scripture (not meaning politically liberal, but theologically--applying the tools of historical-critical biblical scholarship and analysis to the Bible), I must help guide congregants to "best sources," "most accurate translations," and broadly agreed "interpretation" among scholars and commentators. As one scholar once said, "We liberals take the Bible too seriously to take it literally."
Might I suggest that we begin to apply some of these historical-critical skills when vetting our news? Don't believe what you hear or read just because someone sends you a link or you hear it on a TV show. Do some "sourcing" yourself. See if other trusted news sources are running the story. Oh, and try to BEGIN with a trusted source to begin with. I reject the thought that great news oracles like The Washington Post and The New York Times are "fake news." They are not, and they DO present balanced opinions, even if their editorial policy may sway liberal. (Some of the best conservative commentators such as George Will or Charles Krauthammer write for The Washington Post, for example.) I find it interesting that so many who are buying the "fake news" argument with which our free press is being attacked are often persons who may tend to use the Bible in ways that harm or judge other individuals by taking things out of context and using ill-advised literal interpretations of scripture.
So, what is The State of the Onion? Things are beginning to smell a bit. May we turn our personal, collective, and national vigilance toward respect for professional, legitimate media and factual reporting, with the aim of being an informed people again, not one that is being manipulated and used to advance a tightly focused agenda that robs our diversity and fogs our senses.
As one with a degree in journalism and communications, I have a special respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. I accept as the journalist's creed the slogan from the masthead of The Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness." A free--and legitimate--press is foundational to a free state. "Legitimate" means writing stories based on as much fact as the reporter can glean using the "mantra" of the five Ws and the H--Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Quotes must be exact and not paraphrased; sources must be corroborated with at least one other source. Any "theory" or conjecture must be clearly labeled as such, but was never admissible in a news story before the days of "New Journalism" as advanced by Thomas Wolfe, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, et. al. Editorials should be properly relegated to the editorial page or the opinion page opposite it (hence "op ed"). Readers should know beyond doubt whether they are reading a news story or an opinion piece. Those lines are increasingly blurred, even in some "real" newspapers, and on TV, all bets are off, basically. Still, there are great varieties of genuine news sources practicing the profession of journalism. Personally, I try to read three or four newspapers a day--The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The New York Times, The Washington Post (all of which I subscribe to), and as much of The Wall Street Journal as I can read online "for free." I also like to listen to NPR and the excerpts of the BBC which they feature, or occasionally I listen to BBC America on my satellite radio. When cruising Facebook, I very carefully examine the "byline" of any "story" posted or linked by one of my friends. Unfortunately, some of my "friends" are far less than discriminating as to the legitimacy of the sources of stories they post, so I must be! And, I never "believe" a story until I have found it reprinted or followed up by another legitimate news source.
Why am I harping about this? Several reasons:
1. Accurate, truthful information is essential to forming opinions, voting my conscience, and even in responsibly leading my congregation to engage in the kinds of justice and peace seeking ministries to which Jesus calls us. We need to be properly informed, people! And nobody is doing the screening for us!
2. Journalism and the First Amendment are under attack in our time, and not just from politicians and presidents. When people become less discriminating in their "taste" for news and information, "wolves in sheep's clothing" may slip in, sometimes to intentionally misinform or sway opinion in accordance with a selfish, power, or profit motive, sometimes just to sell something. In these days of the Internet and social media, if a site gets lots of "hits," it becomes an advertising and "click bait" cash cow, whether the content of the site is real or total drivel (or worst-case, intentionally deceptive).
3. I fear there are parallels between the erosion and denigration of news sources and how people will react to and "hear" something that is an essential "source" of my Christian faith--Scripture. How can I possibly preach and teach the efficacy and message of the scriptures, helping my congregation extract and apply its inherent truths, in a world where less and less printed matter is deemed trustworthy? And, because I am a liberal interpreter of scripture (not meaning politically liberal, but theologically--applying the tools of historical-critical biblical scholarship and analysis to the Bible), I must help guide congregants to "best sources," "most accurate translations," and broadly agreed "interpretation" among scholars and commentators. As one scholar once said, "We liberals take the Bible too seriously to take it literally."
Might I suggest that we begin to apply some of these historical-critical skills when vetting our news? Don't believe what you hear or read just because someone sends you a link or you hear it on a TV show. Do some "sourcing" yourself. See if other trusted news sources are running the story. Oh, and try to BEGIN with a trusted source to begin with. I reject the thought that great news oracles like The Washington Post and The New York Times are "fake news." They are not, and they DO present balanced opinions, even if their editorial policy may sway liberal. (Some of the best conservative commentators such as George Will or Charles Krauthammer write for The Washington Post, for example.) I find it interesting that so many who are buying the "fake news" argument with which our free press is being attacked are often persons who may tend to use the Bible in ways that harm or judge other individuals by taking things out of context and using ill-advised literal interpretations of scripture.
So, what is The State of the Onion? Things are beginning to smell a bit. May we turn our personal, collective, and national vigilance toward respect for professional, legitimate media and factual reporting, with the aim of being an informed people again, not one that is being manipulated and used to advance a tightly focused agenda that robs our diversity and fogs our senses.
No comments:
Post a Comment