Discerning Truth Despite “Journalistic Malpractice”

By Julie Roys
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn


            I used to trust the mainstream media.  About 20 years ago, as a reporter for a CBS affiliate, I belonged to it!   Most of my colleagues, though liberal, at least attempted to be fair and objective.  In journalism school, too, my professors, which included staff and executives at major media outlets, were principled and professional.  That was then; bias is now.
            This bias isn’t reflected merely in how stories are reported; what leads and what’s buried play an equally important role.  So, last week, when a major breaking story dropped to mere mention in newscasts, the media once again showed their partisan hand.             

            As you may recall, government sources Tuesday night leaked e-mails to the media contradicting the White House and State Department’s narrative on the attack at the Libyan consulate. A story with such import and controversy should have dominated news coverage the next day.  But, when I flipped through news and talk stations Wednesday morning, no one was mentioning it!  Instead, they were obsessing over a senate candidate’s opinion that if someone gets raped and impregnated, it’s “God’s will.”   
            Now, I appreciate the media’s sudden concern for discerning God’s will.  But, I find unconscionable that a candidate’s verbal gaffe would trump a major news story regarding the national security and the government’s credibility. Similarly, ABC News devoted a mere 20 seconds to the Libya revelations, prompting the President of the Media Research Council to charge the network with “shielding Obama.”  Pulitzer-prize-winning Columnist Charles Krauthammer called the media’s failed coverage “journalistic malpractice.” 
            Recently, a Christian leader told me that the truth has become so muddled in the partisan media – both Left and Right – he’s not going to vote.  While I share his frustration, I don’t agree with his conclusion. Christians have a moral obligation both to discern the truth and to vote.  These days, this requires more than merely watching the nightly news. It requires digging on the internet; reading multiple news outlets; and then listening to God’s still, small voice.  Then, we can act according to knowledge and God’s leading.  
            
SHARE THIS:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

GET EMAIL UPDATES!

Keep in touch with Julie and get updates in your inbox!

Don’t worry we won’t spam you.

More to explore

2 thoughts on “Discerning Truth Despite “Journalistic Malpractice””

  1. How deep are you willing to dig? May I suggest that you follow the money. Start with Reuters and AP and work your way down. What you think is partisanship is nothing more than drama between actors on a stage. It’s designed to make us think that we are doing our due diligence and seeking out the truth when in reality we are choosing from the choices that they have provided. The truth can be had, but it is buried. Most people will not forsake their personal paradigm in order to find it. Keep nothing off-limits (including your faith)… the Christ didn’t.

  2. I was watching the news with Geraldo Rivera as one of the guests during a conversation on Libya. Geraldo actually said that he believed the story should remain on the back burner because he didn’t want it to taint the election. do you remember the 2004 election? Story after story came out about the protests (which by the way ended up having no truth attached to them; oops)crys of “No blood for oil”; the false accusations of attacking a country to secure its oil? Big news; no evidence, and eventually no truth. With the Libya story we are, and have been since the day of the attacks been gathering more and more evidence from the voices of the attackers in Egypt chanting, “We’re all Osama’s, Obama” flatly calling into question the video accusation that very day, to the real time video of Libya from a drone over head, to the e-mails and cables, yet this garners nothing from the press? The only difference in these two coverages aside from one having no evidence and the other having still mounting evidence is the party of the president at the center of these stories covered by a self-proclaimed left leaning press. It doesn’t take even a grade school diploma to figure this one out.

Leave a Reply