Reporting the news is really hard. We've seen those poor guys standing in the hurricanes, trying to hold on to their microphone while debris flies by. And it's a good thing we have them; blogs and Twitter are nice, but to find out what's really going on in the world, at some point you need good old-fashioned journalism.
So can you blame a news outlet for using shortcuts and falling into the same old mistakes and cliches over and over again, just to fill space?
Yes, yes we can.
5Let's Ask the Idiots About Science
When it comes to matters of opinion or personal beliefs, it is absolutely the duty of the news media to report both sides (and any extra sides there may be, on those rare odd occasions when there are somehow more than two). It doesn't matter which one they agree with, they need to acknowledge the fact that some people think gay marriage is a right and others think the gays are forming a unicorn army that will kill us all.
Image courtesy of Faithmouse.com
When it comes to matters of fact, however, they absolutely do not have that duty. Particularly when it comes to technical or scientific matters where it takes somebody with training to speak knowledgably on the subject.
If we're talking about if, say, vaccines cause autism, we need to hear from scientists. That's a scientific issue. We do not need to hear from Jenny McCarthy or Jim fucking Carrey, in the name of giving "both sides." Jim and Jenny don't get a side. They have no background in the subject, and it's one that requires fucking background.
Once this happens, your opinion on medicine doesn't matter.
Sure, they can talk about poisonous vaccines to Oprah or whoever is sitting next to them at the Lakers game all they want. They have freedom of speech. That freedom does not guarantee them a seat on a panel of experts.
Yet, this kind of stupidity happens constantly. You get articles like this one from the Toronto Star, explaining how an investigation revealed how World Trade Center building 7 collapsed:
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.
The organization they mentioned, the NIST, studies how buildings collapse so that they can make sure future buildings don't collapse. But instead of going into further detail on their extensive investigation, we get this:
Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation. "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said. Ah, yes, the conspiracy nut. Again, we would never deny a crazy person the right to be crazy.
They just shouldn't get a voice equal to that of hundreds of highly-trained experts. It can't be done that way. After all, there is a contingent of conspiracy kooks drifting around every subject. You don't stop every story about AIDS in Africa to hear from the John Bircher who thinks AIDS is a secret government population control project spread by fluoridated water.
But we can't just disregard their opinions, can we? Yes. Yes we can. If you're going to weigh in on a scientific matter, you need to bring data, gathered by people who know what the fuck they're talking about. If the subject is medicinal marijuana, we're not going to quote a stoner who has suddenly realized his hands can talk.
The first rule of modern journalism is that everything has to have a cute nickname. When celebrities are dating you mash their names together (Bradgelina!) and when there's a scandal, or anything that sort of looks like a scandal, you tack "-gate" onto the end.
Obviously we can thank the Watergate Scandal for this, which was only named that because it involved a break-in at the Watergate hotel, which itself was named after a planned reception area on the shore of the Potomac river that oh by the way, does not exist.
We get another "-gate" about once a year these days. The Clinton administration had like five different -gate scandals (Troopergate, Travelgate, etc). But now? Janet Jackson's nip slip at the Superbowl--Nipplegate. Tom Cruise mad at an episode of South Park that makes fun of Scientology? Closetgate. Someone crashes Obama's party at the White House? Gatecrashergate. Soon we expect to learn Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is using public funds to buy himself a new gate in Gatesgategate.
Pictured: Gate's gait.
You can also thank New York Times columnist William Safire, who started 'gating every scandal starting all the way back in 1974, when Watergate was still going on. Thanks to him, journalists get a Bonergate every time they think there's a gate-worthy scandal, and political pundits are always eager to hang a -gate on the other side (see the "climategate" emails).
Gotham City already experienced Bonergate.
The only thing that makes us feel better is the knowledge that, in some alternate universe, the Watergate hotel was instead named after John Hancock.