Story behind the Story

This is a follow-up on an earlier post about Readers Digest.  One of the articles in the July issue was called The Story Behind the Story (this is a link to the online article).  I have thought about this article often since reading it last month.  There are several things that I appreciate and value about the article.

First, many media sources have taken an aggressive stance to defend their news-worthiness.  There are comments like 'we are professionals', 'we don't push opinions', 'we have fact finders', etc.  Instead of listening to concerns that people have, their tone and approach is to attack people for having those concerns.  The simple fact is that more and more people are questioning their news sources and thus feeds the saying 'perception is reality'.

Instead of attacking, Readers Digest decided to dive into their process and what they do to present all sides of an article or news story.  They break it down into four sections - laying the groundwork, getting the goods, asking the experts, and checking and balancing.  The tone of the writing is very neutral and factual - not defensive and definitely not attacking.

Second, my humble opinion is that it is very fair to question the bias of the media.  It does seem that the majority of media mistakes are on just one side of the political spectrum (just compare how many times that media was wrong about Joe Biden versus Donald Trump*).  Further, nothing has changed by those that pushed wrong stories.  Dan Rather was fired from CBS for the misreports about President Bush.  Nobody has loss their jobs or been demoted based on the numerous and many false reports about President Trump.  

What is more troubling is that we are not seeing any changes in the processes and procedures that are followed.  Or maybe they are happening without informing the public.  If so, this is a missed opportunity to be transparent and start to rebuild trust.

Finally, Readers Digest presents itself as just a compilation of articles and not a stand-alone news source.  It is worth noting that many publications and media sources have blurred the lines between news and opinions.  MSNBC and Fox News has news shows in the earlier parts of the evening and then starts their editorial content in the later parts of the evening.  Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are presenting opinions, not news.  We as consumers and media companies should stop blurring the lines.  Opinions are important and should be shared, but not just under the banner of news.

I submit that I may be wrong on much or all of the above,   These are, after all, just my opinions.

* The generally accepted misreports about Joe Biden were about his mental capacity, which that reporting only benefited the former President.