Awful Journalism from CBS News

[Denver]

I think besides what has already been said about the entertainment impetus of news, there is also a confusion in the media industry between efficiency and laziness.

The plethora of new story leads must be wonderful for reporters. I imagine it is almost a competition between the different media groups as to who can find the best source of blogs to monitor. And this can be a very efficient way to develop a current and relevant source of story leads.

But when the leads are not followed up, investigated, vetted, and so on, but are simply dressed up, clipped down, and reported, then this efficiency turns into laziness.

The really unfortunate thing is that I suspect this method is in demand by the audience more than a lengthy and detailed account of a given subject. So I only seeing it getting worse.

 

[G-K-4]

When looking at these news reports, we might also look at how they came about. Who directed reporters' attention to this story?

This earlier CBS report links to several other reports about the HPV vaccine, as a kind of journalistic "pile-on". One of the articles, from USN&WR, was written by one Deborah Kotz, who received a "warning" from Judicial Watch about the vaccine.

Kotz wrote, in part:

"Judicial Watch opposes efforts in many states to make the vaccine mandatory for all girls ages 11 and 12. Those efforts have raised concerns among religious groups that protecting against the sexually transmitted virus will encourage promiscuity among teen girls."

So, in this case it might be worth looking at what organizations are driving the story (sending out press releases, perhaps), and what their agendas are.

 

[Highly Selassie]

Check out SourceWatch's article on Judicial Watch. (I can't post links yet, sorry.) It's yet another conservative manufactroversy factory funded by the Scaife Foundations with a vague yet agreeable-sounding name and less-than-overt Christian influences.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Check out SourceWatch's article on Judicial Watch. (I can't post links yet, sorry.) It's yet another conservative manufactroversy factory funded by the Scaife Foundations with a vague yet agreeable-sounding name and less-than-overt Christian influences.

Have you tried? I thought 15 posts was the threshold?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is one of the most stupid statements I've ever read on the forum.

Why?

I can see the fact there may be other negative consequences besides STDs, but I can't tell if that is where you were going with this or not.

NEVER MIND, I see it has been addressed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't CBS news the outfit that actually stirred the pot with the mercury crowd?

No, that pot was stirred with some bad science linking MMR to autism and the parents of autistic kids that were already organized into a support group.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think besides what has already been said about the entertainment impetus of news, there is also a confusion in the media industry between efficiency and laziness.

The plethora of new story leads must be wonderful for reporters. I imagine it is almost a competition between the different media groups as to who can find the best source of blogs to monitor. And this can be a very efficient way to develop a current and relevant source of story leads.

But when the leads are not followed up, investigated, vetted, and so on, but are simply dressed up, clipped down, and reported, then this efficiency turns into laziness.

The really unfortunate thing is that I suspect this method is in demand by the audience more than a lengthy and detailed account of a given subject. So I only seeing it getting worse.

Why would reporters be more lazy than other professions and if that isn't the case, why wouldn't the non-lazy ones be preferred by management responsible for hiring?

I think your assumptions are faulty. If you look at the history of the degradation of the US mainstream news media you will find corporate buyouts and shifting to economic profit models as opposed to good journalism models of days gone by. Start with the LA Times, sold to a corporate interest after "119 years of ownership of The Los Angeles Times by the Otis and Chandler families". It is a typical example.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When looking at these news reports, we might also look at how they came about. Who directed reporters' attention to this story?

This earlier CBS report links to several other reports about the HPV vaccine, as a kind of journalistic "pile-on". One of the articles, from USN&WR, was written by one Deborah Kotz, who received a "warning" from Judicial Watch about the vaccine.

Kotz wrote, in part:

So, in this case it might be worth looking at what organizations are driving the story (sending out press releases, perhaps), and what their agendas are.

Good point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Check out SourceWatch's article on Judicial Watch. (I can't post links yet, sorry.) It's yet another conservative manufactroversy factory funded by the Scaife Foundations with a vague yet agreeable-sounding name and less-than-overt Christian influences.

Link for you: Judicial Watch

funded by

Scaife Foundations

By 1999, the Washington Post reported that the Scaife's foundations had given $340 million to conservative causes and institutions.[2]

Interesting blog, News Corpse, related entry: Conservative Vultures Circling Over Wounded Media

The plan, in short, is for conservative think tanks to produce stories that they could feed to newspapers and television who, due to their desperation for content, would gladly publish it.

 

[Highly Selassie]

Have you tried? I thought 15 posts was the threshold?

Ah, you're right... I thought it was 50 for some reason. Thanks for the correction, as well as to skeptigirl for posting the link.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting blog, News Corpse, related entry: Conservative Vultures Circling Over Wounded Media

All I can say is thank the FSM for teh Internet!

 

[technoextreme]

No, that pot was stirred with some bad science linking MMR to autism and the parents of autistic kids that were already organized into a support group.

No. There was a news report from one of the news outfits that exposed the dangers of mercury quite recently. The lady was the former head of the Red Cross.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. There was a news report from one of the news outfits that exposed the dangers of mercury quite recently. The lady was the former head of the Red Cross.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your first comment seemed to imply you thought that is where/when the mercury vaccine issue began.

I was referring to the beginning of this particular vaccine woo. There actually had been an anti-vaxer movement earlier on when some parents in England (I believe) concluded MMR caused more encephalopathy than it prevented. I think that was the actual root of the anti-vaxer movement.

As for stirring the pot, it has never been unstirred for more than a month or two ever since.

 

[technoextreme]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your first comment seemed to imply you thought that is where/when the mercury vaccine issue began.

The former head of the Red Cross was either on CBS, ABC, or NBC making claims that the mercury debate is self evident and patently obvious.