As I am writing this, meandering my way to whatever point I am trying to make, I end up with the same basic thought. Or request, if you will.
I want to hear from you about the news and information you consume — where you get it, why you get it from there and what you expect from it in terms of quality, credibility and bias, or its lack.
My latest ruminations on news sources got started while reading last Sunday’s New York Times, which I consume daily along with three other newspapers, two online news resources and two network TV news shows.
I think the Times is the best newspaper in the country. It has an amazing reach, devotes enormous resources to gathering news and presents it in a largely unbiased manner. I know this is not a widely held view.
Specifically, I was reading a terrific report by the Times (“90 Seconds of Rage”) on seven participants in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol who had been identified as having beaten a police officer with a metal pole bearing an American flag. The Times has done astonishingly good work on the insurrection, plunging deeply into hundreds of hours of videos to detail what happened on that day. Online, they have augmented this work with additional footage. This story is one more excellent example.
What jumped off the page to me early in the Sunday news story was this reference to “President Donald J. Trump’s unfounded assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him.”
Unfounded assertion.
News reporters are supposed to be unbiased. There was an industry trend in the 1960s and 1970s to say reporters should be “objective.” But no one is, and so the true standard is fair and balanced. Without bias.
“Unfounded assertion” is mild language to describe something you know is untrue — and when you know the person saying it knows it is untrue.
But as a newspaper reporter, which I have been for more than nearly 50 years, it is, frankly, a quandary.
Do you call it a lie? It is such a highly charged word, and, in using it, you abandon the appearance that you are unbiased, even if it is, quite accurately, an unbiased statement.
Recommended for you
If a politician lists a college degree on a resume, and that person never got that degree — never even attended the college — the person is a liar. You resolve it with a simple recitation of fact: Candidate Schmidlap stated on his campaign resume that he received a bachelor’s degree in political science from Harvard University. There is no record of his ever attending or enrolling at Harvard or receiving a degree. But I can tell you from personal experience, saying so will result in accusations of bias.
And when candidate Schmidlap refuses to remove the falsehood from his campaign materials, do you continue to bring it up? Do you say it is a lie?
Throughout the Times story, they continued to wrestle with this issue, at one point edging close to calling the former president a liar, describing his statements about the election as a “political lie.” Certainly, there is acceptable license in political rhetoric in which a candidate can assert an opponent is soft on crime, for example, because she supports reduced sentencing for nonviolent offenses. The underlying basis is accurate. The characterization of it is part of the rough and tumble of a campaign and, as Mr. Dooley wrote, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”
But a lie should be a lie, and characterizing it as anything else is just one more example of the bramble path journalism has had to walk since 2016.
It is such a strange time. A time of great truths. A time of enormous lies.
And that applies, perhaps more than anywhere else in our divided nation, to the information we consume, digest and reformulate into opinion.
We are awash in sources of information that are unreliable and, in the pre-social media era, would never have appeared in a news outlet of general circulation.
I would like to think there is such a thing as truth. The problem with the truth, it would seem, is that everyone thinks they know what it is, and that they are the sole possessor of it.
All of which leads back to my initial question. I would like to have a discussion with you. I want to hear from you.
Where you get your news? What are your credible sources of news? Are they unbiased? Are they more reliable because they do have an obvious bias?
In this era of information bewilderment, tell me where you go for reliable news.
Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.
I will give some thought to your question about news sources but would like to know when Trump changed his name to Schmidlap? Could that be the name he uses on his tax returns he said he would release "very soon" five years ago? BTW, would his statement about releasing his taxes be considered a lie or would it be called an indeterminate alternative fact?
Mr. Simon, the original fake news source, the New York Times, could be the best newspaper in the country - if they dismissed their entire political staff. The NYT and the Amazon Post and pretty much most of the mainstream media are well-known as Democrat mouthpieces and quality and credibility are no longer in their DNA.
I don’t have a subscription to the NY Times, so I can’t read your alleged “90 Seconds…” report, but perhaps you can tell me whether they mention that the FBI found scant evidence the US Capitol attack was coordinated (as another commenter recently pointed out in another letter). Hard to carry out an “insurrection” with no coordination. Perhaps you can tell me whether they mention that a US Capitol lieutenant, in the name of Michael Byrd, committed homicide in killing an unarmed Ashli Babbitt. The same man who once (as far as we know) left his gun in the men’s bathroom. Trust me, if half a million American patriots wanted to get in on the action, you actually would have had an insurrection, in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you can tell me whether they mentioned the Antifa-BLM activist embedded with the rioters and posing as a Trump supporter.
And let’s not get started with the smear pieces the NYT has attempted. Their reporters wanting to label supporters of our great President Trump as enemies of the state or calling American flags disturbing. The number of corrections to their biased articles. To wit, overstating COVID hospitalizations of kids, claiming border patrol agents whipped people, lying about Trump separating parents from kids, lying about Palestinians not paying terrorist families… and the list goes on.
As for media sources, I’d recommend any source that doesn’t provide you with confirmation bias or easily debunked fake news. Or any news source the NYT tries to discredit. Project Veritas and Judicial Watch come to mind. I think what anyone expects in media is fairness, objectivity, journalistic integrity, and facts being checked. All of which the NYT and the mainstream media no longer have.
Thanks for the funny read this morning. Glad I finished my coffee so I wouldn't spit it all over the keyboard. Ha, Project Veritas, I am still laughing. BTW, that explains a lot of your fantasies. BTW again, how are you doing with your bamboo fibers?
Taf--That cracked me, too! Project Veritas is right up Terence's alley!
Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group. It produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.
Wait, is this really Tommy Tee? Spreading his wings to more than one or two sentences? I’m honored. But I digress… So Tommy, if you consider the source to be right, then it’s not valid? So everyone can assume left-wing information is also invalid? I guess since Katie Couric is a leftie, her deceptively edited video and propagating misinformation is okay by you? The fake news and lies from the NYT is okay by you? We’re back where we started from, aren’t we? So how about your sources of news and information, and what you expect from them? Between the NYT and Project Veritas, everyone knows Project Veritas is much more credible. As the few highlights I’ve outlined from fake news NYT show. BTW, Tommy, you could have actually just used one sentence, “News isn’t real news unless I say it is.” But I do thank you for expanding your horizons. More please.
Taffy, now I understand why you’re so interested in panda diets and always asking for help. You’re trying to create a new coffee blend where pandas consume coffee beans and then you retrieve them after “processing”? Akin to Black Ivory or Kopi Luwak coffee. What’s your brand name? TP Blend – short for Taffy’s Panda Blend? You know, because pandas process your beans. Slogan? TP Coffee – a harmonious blend between black and white? You know, because of panda colors. I like it. I'll let you use those for free.
IMHO, the only reliable news is a combination of far left, far right and everything in the middle to be read daily/often and then make up your own mind as to what/which/etc. is real news to yourself. To depend on one or just a few sources will only provide vision from their's...
After a while...a personal filter of what/which ones are telling the truth most often...to those which stretch it...to those which out right lie
My RSS feeds have over 70 different news sources and read much of it each day...retired from a large corporation where was a manager in their Strategy and Planning group (M&A and provided outlooks/projections/etc. of where our market sectors should/would be going)
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(8) comments
Mr. Simon,
I will give some thought to your question about news sources but would like to know when Trump changed his name to Schmidlap? Could that be the name he uses on his tax returns he said he would release "very soon" five years ago? BTW, would his statement about releasing his taxes be considered a lie or would it be called an indeterminate alternative fact?
The most reliable source of news I have found about USA political matters is, I am somewhat sorry to say, the BBC.
Mr. Simon, the original fake news source, the New York Times, could be the best newspaper in the country - if they dismissed their entire political staff. The NYT and the Amazon Post and pretty much most of the mainstream media are well-known as Democrat mouthpieces and quality and credibility are no longer in their DNA.
I don’t have a subscription to the NY Times, so I can’t read your alleged “90 Seconds…” report, but perhaps you can tell me whether they mention that the FBI found scant evidence the US Capitol attack was coordinated (as another commenter recently pointed out in another letter). Hard to carry out an “insurrection” with no coordination. Perhaps you can tell me whether they mention that a US Capitol lieutenant, in the name of Michael Byrd, committed homicide in killing an unarmed Ashli Babbitt. The same man who once (as far as we know) left his gun in the men’s bathroom. Trust me, if half a million American patriots wanted to get in on the action, you actually would have had an insurrection, in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you can tell me whether they mentioned the Antifa-BLM activist embedded with the rioters and posing as a Trump supporter.
And let’s not get started with the smear pieces the NYT has attempted. Their reporters wanting to label supporters of our great President Trump as enemies of the state or calling American flags disturbing. The number of corrections to their biased articles. To wit, overstating COVID hospitalizations of kids, claiming border patrol agents whipped people, lying about Trump separating parents from kids, lying about Palestinians not paying terrorist families… and the list goes on.
As for media sources, I’d recommend any source that doesn’t provide you with confirmation bias or easily debunked fake news. Or any news source the NYT tries to discredit. Project Veritas and Judicial Watch come to mind. I think what anyone expects in media is fairness, objectivity, journalistic integrity, and facts being checked. All of which the NYT and the mainstream media no longer have.
Terence,
Thanks for the funny read this morning. Glad I finished my coffee so I wouldn't spit it all over the keyboard. Ha, Project Veritas, I am still laughing. BTW, that explains a lot of your fantasies. BTW again, how are you doing with your bamboo fibers?
Taf--That cracked me, too! Project Veritas is right up Terence's alley!
Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group. It produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.
Wait, is this really Tommy Tee? Spreading his wings to more than one or two sentences? I’m honored. But I digress… So Tommy, if you consider the source to be right, then it’s not valid? So everyone can assume left-wing information is also invalid? I guess since Katie Couric is a leftie, her deceptively edited video and propagating misinformation is okay by you? The fake news and lies from the NYT is okay by you? We’re back where we started from, aren’t we? So how about your sources of news and information, and what you expect from them? Between the NYT and Project Veritas, everyone knows Project Veritas is much more credible. As the few highlights I’ve outlined from fake news NYT show. BTW, Tommy, you could have actually just used one sentence, “News isn’t real news unless I say it is.” But I do thank you for expanding your horizons. More please.
Taffy, now I understand why you’re so interested in panda diets and always asking for help. You’re trying to create a new coffee blend where pandas consume coffee beans and then you retrieve them after “processing”? Akin to Black Ivory or Kopi Luwak coffee. What’s your brand name? TP Blend – short for Taffy’s Panda Blend? You know, because pandas process your beans. Slogan? TP Coffee – a harmonious blend between black and white? You know, because of panda colors. I like it. I'll let you use those for free.
IMHO, the only reliable news is a combination of far left, far right and everything in the middle to be read daily/often and then make up your own mind as to what/which/etc. is real news to yourself. To depend on one or just a few sources will only provide vision from their's...
After a while...a personal filter of what/which ones are telling the truth most often...to those which stretch it...to those which out right lie
My RSS feeds have over 70 different news sources and read much of it each day...retired from a large corporation where was a manager in their Strategy and Planning group (M&A and provided outlooks/projections/etc. of where our market sectors should/would be going)
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.