Who Will Watch the Watchdogs?

I got an email in response to yesterday's Gun Rights Examiner column that gives further examples of journalistic malpractice I think you'll find illustrative. Correspondent Chris Meissen shared his experiences with me and kindly gave me permission to share them with you:

I just read your column on sloppy mainstream firearms reporting and wanted to say that it's not only firearms where "reporters" are too ignorant and/or sloppy to check their facts. Or to even use a modicum of common sense, for that matter.

I worked as a field engineer maintaining the satellite dish distribution equipment for a major network from July 1985 until Feb. 1995. During that time, I had primary responsibility for five TV stations in several Midwest states. I became especially good friends with the engineering staff at one of the stations I serviced as we shared a common interest in firearms and shooting.

One day in 1989 (I think) I arrived at the station and the chief engineer told me he'd saved a tape for me. It was shortly after the very first discovery of an extra-solar system planet. The tape that they'd saved for me to watch was of their evening (6:00 P.M and 10:00 P.M.) news anchor-bunny reporting, quite soberly and seriously, that:

"British astronomers announced the discovery over the weekend of a new planet *in the upper atmosphere.*" The chief engineer and his evening master control operator said that everyone in master control and all three cameramen cracked up laughing when she reported that for the 6:00 P.M. news. Her reaction was to reply, "What? That's what the AP wire said." She then repeated it exactly verbatim on the 10:00 P.M. news.

Why do I assume she must have been a Tony Orlando fan?

Meissen continued:

A year or two later, there was a multiple homicide in a nearby city in which a man stabbed his wife and mother-in-law to death. That same anchor bunny reported it with a handgun graphic behind her and reported that the man was arrested for "two counts of homicide and two counts of using a handgun to commit a homicide." Note: this was before the days of the tactical pistol bayonet.

Those two incidents alone were sufficient to teach me that reporters are journalism majors skilled at stringing together emotionally evocative words but often sadly lacking in common sense or the most fundamental facts about the physical world. But they do "feelings" well and get hired on that basis.

In an addendum, he also informed me:

Another reporter, at a larger station in a much larger city, gave me an unforgettable memory back in 1993, one that is brought to mind all too painfully today.

He and I were talking of the then-ongoing Randy Weaver standoff near Ruby Ridge, ID. In the course of our conversation regarding the accuracy (or not) of the reports being given out, he told me of his first meeting with his current news director, stressing that the news director was not hired by the station but rather by the station's owners.

My friend said that at that first meeting, the news director had stressed that their job as reporters was "to shape public opinion." My friend argued that their job was to find and report the truth. He said the director responded by saying, "Whatever the public's perception of the truth is is the truth and it's your job to make certain that perception matches station and network editorial policies."

I cannot help but think of that as I read the distortions, half-truths, edited recordings, and hyperbole being disseminated with regard to George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin this past week or two.

What can I say, but "Authorized Journalists"...?