Sweden vs Belgium abandoned: Good intentions and media reliability.

Avatar image for nirgal
Nirgal

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#1  Edited By Nirgal
Member since 2019 • 697 Posts

For those of you that don't know, a match between Sweden and Belgium was cancelled due to the assassination of 2 swedish citizens.

I am not here to talk about the incident itself but the reporting of it. I tend to follow several news sources (some which I already consider unreliable to a point of unreadable like fox news ).

For the last 5 years, I have started to include CNN in this category.

Everytime I compare a news article from cnn with the economist (a way better news source) I always find the same issues:

-Massive sensationalism

-Irrelevant information

- Lack of analysis

- Lack of relevant information.

This is the article:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/europe/belgium-brussels-shooting-intl/index.html

If you were to read this news you would have zero idea that there is a already a suspect claiming responsibility for the incident and that he is saying he is done that for religious purposes.

Now compare to Al Jazeera:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/17/two-swedes-killed-in-brussels-in-possible-terrorist-shooting.

I imagine they are trying to protect religious minorities by not displaying this information, the issue here is that the news source becomes completely unreliable as a result of this.

You are not receiving complete information to make your own judgement, you are receiving just the information they think you need to reach the judgment that they like.

And even if the judgement is correct (like don't be racist), you end up completely destroying trust in the media by very openly withholding unpalatable information.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38684 Posts

one article was posted yesterday, the other today.

is it possible additional information became available in the time between?

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

44621

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 44621 Posts

Stories like that seem like developing situations, think I saw something about this on Twitter yesterday when they identified the shooter, if this was the guy who was driving around on scooter shooting people

it takes time though to get a full story, people being killed somewhere is usually the first known detail in such a story, as we Americans know in the countless mass shootings that interrupt live TV for a breaking story, usually takes hours or a day or two to identify shooter, search their home for information on their motives, and overall have a more compressive understanding of the entire situation.

In Europe's situation too, perhaps they fadhion their coverage in attempt to prevent ethnic/religious animosity, which is a real problem in the region and likely requires a delicate touch, perhaps they might want to avoid headlines that could spark hostile public reactions between their residents.

Going back to Islamitc terrorist incidents in France in past years, the subject of Muslim immigrants in Europe and their lack of integration has been a topic, somewhat attributing the situation in part to the marginalizations of these communities, further becoming an issue too large to ignore when loads of European born children of immigrants traveled to Turkey to cross the border and fight for ISIS in Syria, coming to regret the decision after months of beheading infidels and kicking their heads around like soccer balls, wanted to return home to Europe, in some countries like Denmark faced with a decision whether to even let them back but also having to weigh what such a decision would mean longterm trying to not make such communities feel marginalized, to try to pursue making such communities feel integrated in the countries they live, and offering deradicalization programs, and Denmark let its own citizen/residents that became ISIS fighters back into the country (at one point) without fear of repercussions. Now, while I think such a move was way too risky to consider, I understand the motive in what such decisions have in identifying a goal to prevent marginalization and to not further drive a wedge in the integration issue. Perhaps misguided, but I understand the intention.

I guess what I'm trying to say, seems TC feels certain facts are omitted in reporting like perhaps an agenda is at work. I gotta say, I might agree insofar as to say if it were, it is probably with a regard for safety concerns within those countries, to not further feed into reactionary reporting that sparks violence and ethnic hatred. Despite the Brussels incident, even within the US, people here are killing each other over the news at what's happening in Israel and Gaza. That's not a bad thing to think press might temper their reporting if that were the case. Quite frankly news media sometimes seems irresponsible in what and how they cover something if their end goal is to just get clicks, even if it exacerbates and fuels social divides in society. If there is an agenda, I'm sure there is a context. Though, these days just the word "agenda" gets treated with a subtext of meaning something like sinister secretive ulterior motives, but not the case here if that's what's happening.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58417 Posts

The biggest failure of modern media (or, rather, one of the biggest...there are many) is their misguided attempt to appear impartial.

When there are clear bad guys--far-right extremists, corrupt politicians, terrorists, and nations that support terrible stuff--they need the light shown on them.

When a mass shooting happens, it's fear-mongering. It's a whole bunch of stats. But they don't make any attempt to provide context. They don't talk about how most gun deaths are self-inflicted.

Likewise, when Trump says terrible shit, they tend to not put him on blast because that would appear biased. Sorry but if someone says something terrible and nonsensical, then the media needs to say "Trump said something terrible and it didn't make any sense".

What happens too often is the media does a "both sides" thing to appear impartial. Well, the middle- and left-aligned media tends to. People supportive of extremism like the claim the media is stacked against them, but given how well fear-mongering sells, the media really works in their favor.

The media needs to be less "fair", and more honest. I think additional government regulation needs to be done, maybe even to the point they are no longer publicly-traded companies and have to be funded by taxpayers. The whole reason we are in this mess is because FOX News is a profit-making juggernaut of pure shit propaganda, and CNN is struggling to raise money and they have to resort to their own bullshit.

Make cable media boring again. Like CSPAN.