Adam Robinson wrote:Matthew D wrote:I think it's important to remember that these local news reporters are people too. It's easy to blame "the media" for sensationalism. While inaccurate reports do happen, I don't think these reporters purposefully destroy the facts for the sake of sensationalism - if for no other reason than they take their jobs seriously and understand that maintaining credibility is important to doing the job.
Do you know many people in media? Perhaps it's different for the old guard, but I know the new guard is pushed to do exactly that -- destroy the facts and peoples' characters for sensationalism and ratings. The whole credibility bit went out the window about when the internet began destroying advertising dollars. Granted, the local news is better than national, but I know of quite a few cases where they flat out made things up in order to make the story more watchable. This wasn't "misunderstood" or "maybe misinterpreted," but flat fraudulent distortion. I polled nearly everyone in an old neighborhood I lived in to see who the "vast majority of residents" saying something entirely false was, and, surprise, no one had talked to the local reporter, except one woman who said the exact opposite. If we're learned nothing else from the last decade of news reporting it is, in fact, that credibility means absolutely nothing.
I think this was a typical "take down the supposedly wealthy" play attempting to tap into that "populist anger." I don't think they realized, whatever the situation, that there aren't very many people in the city who think Corbett is anything but a great guy, and that they'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Course, all that said, the damned news story has been sent to me nearly two dozen times, I've seen it on Facebook repeatedly, and they have far more comments on their online postings than they normally do, so innocent or not, I'd say they've achieved the real end of media -- ratings.
I have nothing more to say.