Why didn't the networks carefully check their stories?
Did too Much Information Make Us Stupid?
With the rise of the Internet and sites like Wikipedia, millions have gained easy access to seemingly unlimited information about historical and current events. This plethora of information has engendered a mental laziness: Why memorize when a smart device can give you info in seconds? Why ferret out truth when “truths” both suspicious and undocumented are readily available? ABC seems to have chosen the lazy path to reporting.allowing George Stephenopoulos to make a false statement about Trump. CNN seems to have also made a false claim, one regarding a company that transferred Afghanis to safety.
Were both networks guilty of laziness or maliciousness prompted by political views? I suppose the motivation will remain partially or fully hidden unless some set of emails surfaces. The numerous attacks on Trump by a Left-leaning Press might, after the ABC concession, diminish in number if not in intensity (like the false claim that there are fewer but more intense hurricanes because of climate change).
The problem of mental laziness in journalism extends beyond TV cable news. Reporters for newspapers like the NY Times have also shown a disdain for the hard work good journalism requires. The Hunter Biden laptop story is an example. One might think that the paper had more than adequate resources to report on the veracity of the story as the NY Post did. Recall, also, that reporter Jayson Blair fabricated and plagiarized material for his stories in the NY Times.
Lazy? Or Malicious? The fast and furious rate of 24/7 news makes loose handling of information a common denominator across the spectrum of reporting services from independent internet podcasters to mainstream media pundits. And the instances of mirrored phrases and innuendos punctuate the ease with which falsehoods can spread across a network of reporters conjoined at their inner brains. Independence, a characteristic I assume is central to good reporting, lies buried in stories covered the same way and in the same language. Generally, reporters often repeat political party talking points—and that holds for reporters tied to Republicans as well as Democrats.
Detective Shows
Why do we like detective shows? Well, to answer that I’ll point out that there are two kinds of such shows. In the first kind like Columbo, we see the criminal at the beginning and then watch the famous detective discover the perpetrator’s identity. We’re omniscient but intrigued by the process of investigation because we empathize with Peter Falk’s lovable character. Yes, there’s really no mystery. In the second kind like City Homicide and Law and Order: SVU the shows begin with a crime without revealing the identity of the criminal. The show then progresses little by little as the detectives unravel relationships among victims and perpetrators.
If I turned on MSNBC or CNN during the past eight years, I would get a Columbo show. I knew from the outset where the story would eventually go: the perpetrator was from the beginning Donald Trump. There was no investigative process. Bang! Criminal…reiteration by every reporter…guilt. No detective work necessary. That’s the kind of “reporting” that led to abuses of truth-telling. The foreknown outcome dictates the nature of the reporting, the end justifying the means. Machiavelli would be proud.
Of course, there’s another way to serve as a news outlet: Simply ignore a story. Keep it out of the viewers’ minds. The widespread disruption and misuse of taxes caused by illegal immigration, by cartels sex trafficking, by fentanyl deaths, and by communities changed by the open-border policies were non-stories on Democrat-leaning news outlets. In other words. Reporting by not reporting, the laziest way to serve as a reporter.
Will Things Change?
The financial blow to Leftist networks caused by the Trump victory might initiate a change in news coverage, but let’s not hold our breath. Ideology is as difficult to give up as is laziness.
If we took an Aristotelian point of view, we might say that the natural propensity of a reporter is to take the easy way to a story. This isn’t an era with reporters imbued with the principles of hard work. Aristotle said that the natural state of an object was to be stationary. It’s that inertia that makes reporters lazy and willing to accept predetermined explanations or reports.
However, Aristotle knew that some impetus had to be applied for a stationary object to overcome its “natural stationary state.” For reporting, that impetus might be the threat of a lawsuit.
*https://nypost.com/2024/12/17/media/george-stephanopoulos-apoplectic-over-abc-news-settlement-with-trump/
**https://nypost.com/2024/12/16/media/cnn-accused-of-misleading-court-on-net-worth-for-high-profile-defamation-case/