Take a look at these quick examples of media dishonesty, all of which I found at MSN.com.
First a headline from a story printed in the liberal London-based English daily The Guardian: “Four more journalists get felony charges after covering inauguration unrest.” Sounds terrible, doesn’t it? Do you see the assumptions made by the newspaper? Who confirmed that the men arrested were journalists? We don’t want to make any post hoc guesses, but the headline suggests the men were arrested because they were covering unrest at the inauguration. How does the newspaper know one way or another? Maybe they were; maybe they weren’t.
In the story, the writer(s) replace the word “journalists” with “media workers”, a seemingly broader, less specific term than the one used in the headline. Further into the story, at least two of the “journalists” are also called “activists”. Can one be an activist and a journalist?
And then what kind of journalists are the folks arrested? One is called a maker of documentaries, another a “live-streamer”, another a “photojournalist”, and yet another a “freelance journalist”. One begins to sense that at least some of the men may not be journalists at all or that some may, in fact, have participated in the unrest. The story, which can be found here – http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/four-more-journalists-get-felony-charges-after-covering-inauguration-unrest/ar-AAmbHUN?li=BBnb7Kz – does not mention the arrest reports until the end. Those reports state that windows were broken, fires lit, and vehicles damaged.
Second, here’s another headline from a reliable liar, The New York Times: “Trump Won’t Back Down From His Voting Fraud Lie. Here Are The Facts.”
Inside the story, The NYT reports that no evidence has been presented to buttress President Trump’s contention that three to five million illegal immigrants or noncitizens voted in the 2016 presidential election and gave Mrs. Hillary Clinton a hollow raw vote victory. That’s fair and that’s fine. However, that does not make President Trump’s contention a lie; unfounded, yes, a lie, no. But then President Trump has stung The NYT so often by pointing out their prevarications that the newspapers wants to settle the score rather than to report factually.
Third, The New York Times published a story about an executive order Trump will sign that curtails immigration and build the wall along the U.S. Border with Mexico. The NYT article did not mention that a second reason to build the wall was to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. Below lies the link:
The NYT promotes an unfounded statement and one lie in this story. The first is that “the Obama administration had already instituted strict screening procedures for Syrian refugees that were designed to weed out anyone who posed a danger.” In some of the secret emails released by Wikileaks, Mrs. Clinton herself bemoaned the inadequacy of our vetting measures. Beyond that, who determined that Obama instituted “strict screening procedures”? How did the newspaper determine whether a screening procedure was “strict” or not? The reader has no basis on which to accept The NYT’s assertion.
Secondly, The NYT then prints a quote which is patently incorrect, if not a lie, when compared to the reporting in other parts of the story. The NYT quoted immigration advocate and activist Marielena Hincapie saying in response to President Trump’s actions, “To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning.”
Yet the doors are NOT being shut to everybody. Numbers will be reduced, both of legal and illegal immigrants, and refugees from Muslim or terror-prone countries will be banned, at least temporarily. However, some legal immigrants will be allowed. Why did The NYT print the falsehood that the door was being shut to everybody!? Why didn’t they challenge Ms. Hincapie on her statement?