Watching the news can be an overwhelming experience sometimes.  The content and presentation of the news can be misleading and steer the public in a certain direction.  Meaning, there is an ulterior motive.

I have decades of experience being a witness to situations that end up in the newspaper, and it is my estimate that much of what is reported in the news is inaccurate, misleading, or false.   Unfortunately, many are not aware of that.  Initially, when I saw this happening, I was naive and believed it was a simple mistake.  However, after paying close attention, I noticed that this was a frequent occurrence.  I wondered where the information was coming from, and I wondered if there was any accountability in regards to fact-checking.  Eventually, I started to change my thoughts about society, the news we hear, and how we are influenced by it.

To be clear, I am not an expert at news media or journalism, nor from who or how information is obtained, but I do know that what is reported has an effect on people.

For example, there was an online news article about a person who was driving, went left of center, and was involved in a fatal head-on collision. The newspaper reported the driver’s name, age, what kind of car was being driven, and the driver’s city of residence, as well as all of the victim’s information. However, at the time of publication, the incident was still under investigation, therefore, no cause has been determined yet.  The reader’s comments suggested someone should be blamed:

• “I’m sure she was drunk!”
• “Probably texting. That’s why you shouldn’t text and drive.”
• “Stupid teenagers need to pay attention!”
• “I’ve been complaining about that road for years about how unsafe it is and the city won’t do anything about it!”

But think about this: what if one of those people involved in the accident was your loved one?  And then you read the comments that are filled with anger, assumption, and hurtful statements?  First, your loved one’s personal information is on public display. Second, your loved one’s character is being slain, or you are disturbed by the suggestions that your loved one was involved because of recklessness. Third, you may incorrectly assume the city doesn’t care about its road safety. As if you aren’t having difficulty dealing with the tragedy itself, now you must be on guard for public scrutiny, be prepared to defend yourself and your family, and have to deal with more “how’s” and “why’s” than you should have in the first place.

People are quick to blame and make judgments, and if I know this, the newspapers writers, editors, and contributors must know this, too. This much information should not be broadcast publicly, rather, it should wait until the case is closed.  Even then, the media needs to be concerned about the benefit of releasing such information, and have concern for citizen’s privacy.  Honestly, the community has already made a verdict in this case without all of the facts being known. What if the driver had passed out? Or had a seizure? Or heart attack?

This was just local news; think about cases that have been sensationalized, like the OJ Simpson murder trial. I remember a lot of hype about “it the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” but in the end, what was the point of it all?  To polarize society?  To give gossipers something to talk about?  Everyone had an opinion, and citizens fought with each other because of their difference in opinion.

If the news is going to force this much information on the public, it should at minimum be beneficial. Instead of reporting an accident, teach something about safe driving. Instead of accusing someone of a robbery, teach tools about how to save and invest money. Instead of showing a murder suspect, teach about self-defense. Do something to help the community, not deepen the controversy, negativity, and doubt.