Did You Read or View the Whole Thing?

With the continuing growth of the web and the ease with which one can get information
from various web sites, one may choose whether to view reports, excerpts, and soundbites of an event or view the entire event from beginning to end.

We rely on headlines and reports of events for much of our news. Reports are often
given from a “point of view” — either that of the reporter or influenced by the editor or
producer of a publication or program. Content inclusion decisions are often made with
restrictions of time and print space as major factors. This can result in the whole story not
being told.

Let’s take the Rev. Wright’s sermon he gave in which he said that the U.S. was partly to
blame for the attacks by Al Quaida, excerpted on Bill Moyers Journal during his interview with
Wright last Friday. Although not “the whole thing”, this longer excerpt put into context the
Reverend’s comments, unlike the soundbite which made its tour of the networks and websites. The longer excerpt had Wright listing many of the policies that have encouraged disrespect around the world for the U.S., its government, and its culture. In short, the longer version showed the evidence and the Reverend’s conclusion based on the evidence.

Other reports on encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church and Supreme Court decisions show that there is a problem reporting on especially dense documents. For example, the Supreme Court decision at the beginning of this century regarding Microsoft was reported as
a victory for that corporation by some news outlets. On examination of the actual verdict, there was a Finding of Fact that Microsoft was indeed a monopoly, setting the stage for further litigation and/or negotiation between Microsoft and the plaintiffs. This resulted in a loosening of Microsoft’s control of its operating system code, allowing software vendors to plug into the operating system in ways that were only available before to Microsoft for their Office applications. I wouldn’t call this a “victory” for Microsoft.

There can be some difficulty getting the full view from some websites. To see the
O’Reilly Factor interview with Hillary Clinton and other “archived” interviews and programs, I
would have needed to buy a membership ($49.95). But... FoxNews.com had the whole thing
for free, probably only for a limited time. So I got the opportunity to see Parts I and II (I’ll see Part III and IV tomorrow). I don’t have cable, so I rely on the internet to see programs that have already been aired on cable channels. For the most part, these programs are up on websites within hours of having been aired. Having DSL or broadband makes it even easier.

I love to hear pundits go at it — roundtable discussions are some of my favorite programs. However, we need to remember that this is not “the news” — only an interpretation of it.

I have to admit that time for many of us is limited to get the “whole picture.” We rely
on the “media” to summarize for us in a “fair and balanced” manner. However, too many
reporters, editors, and producers too often neglect to report just the facts and end up “spicing it up” a bit. (News can be boring, but isn’t there a way to make accurate facts interesting without presenting an opinion?) Too many of us get all or most of our news from one source, be it the New York Times or the Fox News Channel. Why not watch/read both, or three or four sources? And, if it really matters to us, why not watch or read the whole thing by searching the web or going to the library?