Last night some friends had a dinner party and they told the table about a hellish flight they had been on. Heathrow to Newark, but the flight stopped at Shannon because the bathrooms weren’t working, and they spent 24 hours in Shannon, then after another few hours on the tarmac, airborne, the stewardes–sorry, flight attendants–announced that the bathrooms still weren’t working, and if you really had to use one, could you not flush? Etc. There was nearly an uprising among passengers beginning to sense they had rights. My friends scored 4 $600 vouchers off the airline as compensation.
I bring this up because the story got into the papers, my friends said, and the story was all wrong. It had the bad guys being the flight attendants, when in fact the flight attendants had been great, funny, apologetic. And other facts–flat wrong.
We talked it over and agreed that journalists
almost always get things second-hand and people lie or embellish, or the police have already gotten it second hand so it’s a game of telephone.
That’s what happened with the flight from hell, someone lied about it. Ben Bradlee always used to
say this: We print lies because people tell us lies.
When I was driving home I thought about when I first got into daily journalism, and my girlfriend’s father, a scientist, said that he had once witnessed a fire in his hometown of Toronto and the next day he saw an article about the fire in the paper and everything was wrong. Every fact was wrong, he stated flatly. His denunciation still feels like an illumination, 30 years on. I suppose it’s why I like the blogosphere. You never know if it’s right and you can’t just be a passive reader. And why the best representations of reality are in fiction.
"You never know if it's right and you can't just be a passive reader."
Right on, again. The Internet is forcing people to re-think all the old assumptions. We're starting from scratch again.
Right on.
Especially if an author writes something, and immediately the comments start streaming in correcting his "facts" – many times having links to prove their case.
That does not happen in the newspapers and TV "news" – maybe that's why the old media is so afraid of the blogs…
=========================
"I have to be absent for a while. Do not wait
for me. D."
CHAPTER 2 – Jonathan Harker's Journal Continued
DRACULA, by Bram Stoker
=========================
LETTER FROM COUNT DRACULA TO JONATHAN HARKER: "My friend. Welcome to the Carpathians. I am anxiously expecting you. At the Borgo Pass, my carriage will await you and bring you to me. I trust your journey from London has been a happy one and that you will enjoy your stay in my beautiful land. Your friend, D."
BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (Directed by Francis Ford Coppola)
=========================
Brrrr the monkey is more affraid of the "D." than he is affraid of the blogs.
=========================
"…We're starting from scratch again."
————————-
LUCY WESTENRA'S DIARY "25 August.–Another bad night… I tried to keep awake, and succeeded for a while, but when the clock struck twelve it waked me from a doze, so I must have been falling asleep. There was a sort of scratching or flapping at the window…"
=========================
Brrrr, please no scratching nor flapping on the blog. "We" are not supposed to be the vampires in this tale.
The best way to understand reality is through multiple responsible perspectives, NOT through multiple rumors.
The internet is folk medicine, not a second informed opinion.
I had a similar experience in DC in 1980, as an alternative journalist reading about the Iranian revolution. The Iranian revolution was in full swing, led by youth largely, students. Shia, Marxists, liberals, some opportunists.
Most had compelling visions on what was happening, historically and in the present.
The daily newspaper collective that lived/worked with was located two blocks from the Iranian student mission next to Rock Creek Park (they were on 16th St, we were on 18th at approximately the same cross street).
We got to know a few of the students, informally. All that I met were very confident, sober, committed, not scared of the US.
We were invited to press conferences at their center, at which the major journalists also had representatives. (A not all that common event that we rubbed shoulders.) The presentations at those news conferences were most often clear, reasonable, even inspiring, with some overly zealous almost intoxicated rhetorical flourish, that was out of character with the presenters that we knew through conversation. The reports of one news conference, from the Washington Post seemed entirely mis-representative of the conference that I was at physically.
The lead on their story described some strategy uncovered to undertake some purge in Iran, and only quoted the overly dramatic rhetoric of one of the students, and failed to report the sober, rational, and insightful comments of most of the others.
I was frankly angry. I had seen the same following a similar press conference at the new Nicaraguan embassy.
But, the purge that they had reported did occur. 1/3 of the student that we met at the mission house, were later arrested and most killed (the ones that I remember were on the fence between Marxist and Shia perspectives).
We didn't have access to American diplomatic or intelligence sources at all. We were able to report the voice of the dissenters more completely, but not the reality more completely.
One of the things I like best about the Internet is way it allows me to tell reporters for the mainstream media how badly their stories have overlooked, ignored or misrepresented contrary facts and points of view. Unfortunately many major newspapers or news organizations don't reveal email addresses for reporters and columnists. The only way to reach them in that case is to write them a letter. Over the years though I have found that reporters for major media are becoming more and more accessible. Although some dig in their heels at any suggestion that their story wasn't fairness and perfection incarnate, others thank you for your point of view.
no way, they print lies deliberately because they print what they want to print, for their own reasons. i say this is nearly unanimous!
i say this from many years of being an activist and giving interviews and watching others give interviews and then reading the result.
only deliberate manipulation can explain it.