Learning not to trust reporting

I began to be suspicious of news reporting when I was in high school. As a member of both the Russian and Spanish clubs, we took turns each month  with the other language and history clubs to celebrate a holiday, or note some historic event from our country. Once the Russian club's turn fell on the month when the Russian people commemorate the Bolshevik Revolution, so we put a couple of historical posters up in the classroom, and our small group enjoyed some cookies together during lunch break. 

The next day, there was a large headline declaring that we were trying to press students into the Communist party. Of all the students at the high school, after studying Russian history for a year, we were probably the least likely to idealize the horrors of the Communist takeover. 

But this reality was not what the newspaper "reported".  Probably some student had told their parents that we had "celebrated" the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. Their parents had immediately formed all sorts of hysterical mental images. The deep, dark, "hidden truth" was shared with a newspaper reporter who saw it as an opportunity to increase sales, so he wrote up a "report" which was instead just an emotional attack based on supposition. Sure there was some fact in it - we did have a Russian club, we did commemorate the Bolshevik Revolution by having some posters, and we did have cookies.  We were hardly terrible "Communistic" students who were attempting to brainwash other students. We were just history students who were noting a significant event in that country's history. It was hardly a "celebration". 

Was a reporter even at our small high school club event? No. Did anyone even ask us students what we had done, or why? Was the whole picture presented, letting people know that we were history students who just noted the events which occured during our month. The language and history clubs also noted many other historic days. When it was the French club's turn, we remembered Bastille Day, but it didn't mean that we approved of the violence and cruelty which were used, or of the abuse of power afterwards by the revolution's leaders. 

Did they mention that only a half dozen Russian history students were at our little meeting, and that no other students even saw the historical posters? Did the "facts" explain that we didn't talk about the revolution at all? Did they state how we all felt strongly that the things which had been done to the Russian people were abominable, and how we appreciated our democracy all the more after studying Russian history?

No. But I'm sure the paper sold a lot of copies as they rousingly called everyone to come to "the defence of democracy"!  

My next experience with "reporting" was when I was 19 and attending Diablo Valley Junior College which was just over the hill from the Berkeley college campus. These were the days of hippies, black rights, and anti-Vietnam war demonstrations. 

One day, I was walking past the student center when I heard a yell and saw a metal chair crash through the plate glass window in front of me. I felt so grateful that I had not been hit by any of the glass. That was all there was -- just two guys arguing, and then the young man with a big afro haircut threw his chair at the white guy. He dodged and the chair went through the window.  I didn't know what they were upset about, but I thought they should have shown more maturity and worked it out without throwing chairs and nearly hurting people -- like me!

The next day, I was very surprised when the newspapers "reported" that the campus had been engulfed in a "race riot". I had only been a few feet away from this "riot" and wondered how they could label two men fighting as a "riot"?!

That's when I realized that I had to accept that news reporters are not altruistic people who are dedicating their lives to providing me with "the truth".  Reporters are business people. They "sell" the news. If they don't, then they will have to find some other way to support themselves and their families. They need something new and exciting each day. If there isn't much, and there generally isn't, they "make" the dull and ordinary into the exciting information that we "must read". Tear jerking photos and sordid "facts" are trotted out. Shouts are raised as the "witch hunt" begins and people gather to angrily defend "the cause". 

Though we all know to carefully check out a used car salesman's claims, and we consider it irresponsible and terribly naive to believe everything anyone tells us, then why do be believe that everything that someone writes or "reports" is true?  

I remind myself that the more sensational the story, the more money the writer of it will receive, and therefore the greater chance that the "facts" may be only distortions of reality and should not be trusted. This is when I start checking a multitude of reliable sources until I feel confident that I have enough information to make an informed decision.