Journalism and Media Ethics: UVA, Brian Williams and Bill O'Reily

The term "don't believe everything you read or hear" means more today than it ever has. Media is intertwined within our lives and daily routines more than any other time and history, which drives social narratives and opinions which shift almost hourly (what is trending now?). We've become so anoxious to know what is the next story that we disregard the facts eager to be the next comment. Alot of this is our own responsibilty to do our due dillegence. Ignorance is still bliss throughout our nation.

What is quite sad now is what has become the social norm that even major trusted news organizations are in on the lying and pushing false narratives and stories. Brian Williams (admitted), Bill O'Reily(ego driven lying) have both been in on false war time reporting stories. Cant forget the Dan Rather story from years ago. Where it is clear that some news organizations give a slant of a conservative or liberal perspective; false stories or outright slander is unacceptable. This isnt a right or left issue.

The misinformation within the Ferguson story fueling racial tensions in a recent example of media getting it wrong. And now the admittance by Rolling Stone with a retraction of a campus rape story that should have been done 6 months ago is just crap. Rolling Stone slandered a university, a frat and more importantly specific students. Another affect of the story is how true sexual assault victims may now be less likely to report the crime.

We deserve better from our corrupt news organizations.

it's not a new problem, and scientific journals have had issues with false results and fake peer reviews for a while too.

these guys have no repercussions, and have become more of the story, then the actual story itself. there has to be some sort of penalties for reporting gossip, or down right lies

it's not a new problem, and scientific journals have had issues with false results and fake peer reviews for a while too.

No its not a new problem, but I think its a more harmful one and its affects more people than it did before. I think its dangerous because of the online forum (print media have moved to more an online format) and of how adverstising dollars work. So by "clicks" determine advertising dollars, the bigger the story (or the lie), more of the reason to push outlandish stories ie "gang rape by 7 men within the "safe" confines of a top public university in the nation"...there is alot to gain. sadly

No its not a new problem, but I think its a more harmful one and its affects more people than it did before. I think its dangerous because of the online forum (print media have moved to more an online format) and of how adverstising dollars work. So by "clicks" determine advertising dollars, the bigger the story (or the lie), more of the reason to push outlandish stories ie "gang rape by 7 men within the "safe" confines of a top public university in the nation"...there is alot to gain. sadly

commercial money is WAY better than internet ad revenue.

the worse problem is that people don't seem to care as much about the truth or fixing problems as they do about clicking a link/turning on the tv and having someone spout a 4 second statement that validates their beliefs and let's them know that whatever they already thought is right. no one wants to sit down and watch a 90 minute nuanced debate. those don't have one-liners you can cheer at.

I mean, i don't know how else climate change denial, anti-vaccine rhetoric, or the refusal to believe in evolution can possibly exist. and scientology.

there are plenty of liars out there, you've just got to do your best to avoid getting sucked in.

commercial money is WAY better than internet ad revenue.

the worse problem is that people don't seem to care as much about the truth or fixing problems as they do about clicking a link/turning on the tv and having someone spout a 4 second statement that validates their beliefs and let's them know that whatever they already thought is right. no one wants to sit down and watch a 90 minute nuanced debate. those don't have one-liners you can cheer at.

I mean, i don't know how else climate change denial, anti-vaccine rhetoric, or the refusal to believe in evolution can possibly exist. and scientology.

there are plenty of liars out there, you've just got to do your best to avoid getting sucked in.

True, it's easier just to nod your head in agreement. The other side of it people will form their opinion and regardless of debate will not even shut up to ponder the other view.

But getting back to the subject, nbc (Brian Williams thing) and rolling stone have built people's trust and there an expectation for their present a story and for it to be vetted to the max.

I wonder if journalism has ever been fair and balanced. Agreed there should be standards, but lots of times aren't across the political spectrum.

I remember when way back in 2000's someone associated with the Clintons (Sandy Berger) was discovered to have smuggled documents out of the Clinton Library. CBS was adamant it was an EX associate of the Clintons, while FoxNews was equally adamant it was a Clinton aide. Stuff like that is always happening. Like the Obama Romney campaign, gun violence, Ferguson and South Carolina, Benghazi email coverup, the press always has an angle based on their politics.

It's why, IMO, Rolling Stone SHOULD be blamed more for the UVA rape hoax than the accuser. Yes she lied about details like a guy who was never there. But aside from the human tendency to block out details of traumatic events and fill in blanks later (if something else did happen), there's another reason to excuse the accuser. She isn't a journalist. The people at Rolling Stone were supposed to be, but weren't.

you've got to blame the consumer a bit too. CNN used to be 50minutes of news, 5 minutes of sports, and 5 minutes of entertainment news.

now it's 55 minutes of entertainment news/hour it seems. the networks job is to sell ads. to keep you sitting down to watch them between segments, and straight news doesn't get the same kind of ratings as screaming heads... so guess what? screaming heads for everyone!

you can migrate to things like AON, BBCnews, etc that do a bit better job on bias and reporting, but news networks switched to focusing on entertainment over substance back around 2000... assuming you consider reality tv arguments and marathon disaster coverage "entertaining." they're competing with game of thrones, not max headroom. it's hard to get noticed now.

Rolling Stone sued by UVA frat members over bogus rape story - Jul. 29, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/29/media/rolling-stone-uva-frat-lawsuit/index.html)

Just makes me warm and fuzzy inside...looks like the frat's lawsuit is coming soon as well. Just great to see, I hope they get millions

Hopefully Sean penn was able to give information to the government in order to capture lil chapo.

If he didn't and simply gave this guy a platform, then Sean penn and rollingstone magazine are simply a disgrace. Classless disgrace