In reply to
I am Not the "Angry Left" by
wmtriallawyer, I wrote a comment about talking responsibly with the media. My position is that the MSM, like blogs, writes pieces with agendas. Anyone talking with a reporter must take this into account.
I'd like to expand that with my personal experience talking with ABC.
First, here's a summary of my comments in reply to
I am Not the "Angry Left"by
wmtriallawyer:
- Everyone who talks with the MSM needs to understand that they are going to take what you say and fit it into the point of their piece. Nothing is written just to present information anymore. It has to have a point.
- This makes it like a blog. In writing a blog, you are trying to make a point and you filter the quotes to fit your point.
- The public has a legitimate need for the MSM to have valid, publicly responsible points.
- You need to know what the reporter has in mind as their point before talking with them and assess whether they will fairly represent your opinion.
- When you are talking with them, you have to consider how what you say can be used and stay on message about what you want them to publish.
- When you read or see something in the MSM you have to consider how they are framing opposing points of view. Be cautious on what you conclude and skeptical about portraits of your opponents.
- The one thing you can count on is that the issues are not hidden by the papers [although they often are distorted and may represent the issues some group wants to get across].
Some years ago, one of the ABC programs decided to come interview my girlfriend and me about testosterone replacement therapy for women for a nationally televised show. This is a controversial topic and I was fully prepared for them to take a stand, though I expected them to present both sides of the issue.
In the course of the interview, the reporter asked me "Do you have any concerns about your girlfriend taking testosterone supplements?"
My response was that I was not concerned because she was taking amounts in the normal range. "Normal, healthy, youthful levels of hormones mean normal, healthy, youthful tissues, organs and bodies," I told her.
None of this exchange made it into the final program as aired. That program had an alarmist tone. It featured a number of doctors and others worrying over women taking hormone supplements.
If I had thought about it and decided that, despite our best judgment, I was worried about the risks, then you can bet that any statement I made would have been aired. But even as it is, they left out one of the most important points about this form of HRT.
Before the blogs, the MSM had become degenerate. It wasn't degenerate based on the skills or the motivations of the reporters or editors. It was degenerate because mergers and acquisitions in the media world had reduced competition and because the strength of globalized corporations had given undue influence to the business community. We can never expect the MSM to report this. They would have to say to their readers: "We weren't doing a credible job of giving you the news and we would do a less credible job in the future as we take more money from big corporations and those corporations gobble up media outlets. But the blogs are giving us a run for our money and we are scared that you are going to turn to them to get the truth. It's beginning to keep us honest." How do you do that as a mainstream reporter? How do you allow that to go out as a mainstream editor?
With courage. If they had courage then they could say that. If you read that in the Washington Post, then you'll be really reading about the blogs.