The Whoppers of 2007
After reading this article, I think if there were so many media inaccuracies regarding candidates and their backgrounds, it is the responsibility of the reporters to investigate their claims and make sure they are accurate. If a reporter simply takes what a candidate says verbatim and publishes it, the public will assume what they are saying is true when in fact it could be an exaggeration or a lie. I think reporters should check the facts, just as they would for any other news story, and make sure that these statements are accurate. If they just publish politicians’ speeches without any analysis or support, it would be the same as publishing a press release sent out by the candidate to gain support.
After reading some of the biggest lies or miscalculations given by a politician, it seems that many of the problems deal with politicians. For example, Giuliani said he increased police officers by 12,000 while he was in office, but the problem with that statistic is 7,100 of those people were already officers that were just merged into the police department. By including that population of officers, he was intentionally inflating the number of officers he helped “add” to the police force. In reality, he only hired about 3,700 officers and 3,500 of them were paid for by the federal government under Bill Clinton. In this case, I think the reporters and editors should have investigated the actual number of people added to the forces and corrected this misleading claim. I think it is important for reporters to accurately report the truth on these matters because most readers wouldn’t take the time to look up the statistics themselves and would rather believe what their newspapers are telling them.
I think another problem that should have been fixed is Mitt Romney’s advertisements. For my own personal reasons I don’t care for him but I think reporters should have investigated the claims he was making in his ads to be sure they were accurate. Something that bothers me is how Romney is claiming he doesn’t support McCain’s immigration bill but he previously called it reasonable. I think if there is a record of him saying this, publications should include this with an analysis of the ad. Romney also claimed to support a Massachusetts bill that enforces immigration laws but the law never went into effect. In essence he is lying and I think he should be exposed for it.
What I think this article is trying to say is the media really need to be a watchdog, especially as election time approaches. If we are unable to catch the lies and inaccuracies in campaigns, readers will surely be unable to distinguish between what is real and fake and could ultimately put the wrong person in office. If we tell them the truth behind the ads it would level the playing field and force politicians to become more accountable.
The Whoppers of 2006
Something that immediately irked me in the first few paragraphs of this article is how candidates and parties have twisted words and made up quotes to misrepresent what the public is thinking. If a reporter was to do the same, he or she would surely be fired and most likely be unable to find a respectable journalism job. Why are politicians allowed to do something that would cause others to be fired? Is it because we hold journalism in a higher esteem than politicians? Or is it because we expect to be lied to by politicians? If the latter is true, I think it is time for people to change the perception of candidates and force them to be more accountable.
Something else I noticed is people are more likely to lie and fabricate facts when there is an election involved and they want to make their competitor look bad. While I know it has always been a part of the election process, I think mudslinging needs to be checked just the same as any facts or assertions made by the candidates themselves. If a politician makes a claim and a reporter is able to check the accuracy of the claim, I think it is the reporter’s responsibility to the voters to make sure they know the truth behind the claim.
The Political Power of Words
I thought this article was interesting because I had never thought of the loaded connotation many words carry. It seems that once a buzzword begins to circulate in the industry, many writers will begin to use it, even if they don’t realize the full weight of what they are saying. Something the article mentioned that I thought was important is reporters should be held to a higher standard of clarity than the average American. I think this is important for reporters to remember because if an average citizen were throwing words around without knowing their full meaning, there probably wouldn’t be very severe consequences for his or her actions. But if a reporter were to say the same words in print, he or she could be in trouble with their editors or even with the public for misrepresenting a politician.
Another important point to consider is not letting sources define their opponents. While it would be okay to use a quote from a source when discussing their opponent, it would be unethical for a journalist to use those words to describe someone. Even if someone else said the words, the publication could unintentionally get in trouble for libel.
I think another important point to consider is the fact that many times people are pigeonholed based on their political ideologies, even though this may not be completely accurate. Most people do not fit all the characteristics of a conservative or a liberal so labeling someone as one or the other could lead to misperception of that person. I think rather than labeling someone according to those narrow standards, we should try and describe them more accurately so all of their ideologies and beliefs are being used to describe them, not just one overused word.
