Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Although I am now (obviously) a member of the "media", when I look in the mirror I still see a husband and father first, a cop second and a writer third. Editor? Yeah, I know I am but it's not what I see. I say all that because someone recently asked me about some less-than-complimentary statements I wrote about the "mainstream media". The person felt I might be being hypocritical since I'm a member of the media. Does what I said apply to me? Hmmm...
What I said (paraphrased) is that it's impossible for any reporter to write a strictly 110% objective piece. No matter how hard we try our work is affected by who we are; what our values and beliefs are; what our political and religious beliefs are. Unfortunately we all fall prey to that frailty called being human.
But what I was speaking of and still see on a regular basis is the specific presentation of information in an article with the intent of sensationalizing the material. While such sensationalistic slant may help sell more of the given periodical or get more eyes glued to a television channel, it does not serve the best interests of the public we report to.
There are some blatant and obvious examples. I just picked up the latest copy of the
Sun periodical in my local grocery store. According to it President Obama is going to release information about Area 51 on February 28th; on April 11th the President will face a chemical warfare threat and on Independence Day Jesus is going to appear with a "stunning message of hope". The story on Chemical warfare I MIGHT buy because it is reasonably feasible. The other two? If they occur on the dates published I'll eat the cover of this
Sun "magazine".
But what about other less obvious sensationalistic stories? I can't believe how many "reporters" I saw on television yesterday (Monday, 2/2/09) talking about how President Obama called Jessica Simpson overweight. The bad part is that ANYONE who watched the TODAY show would have heard the President's exact words. Matt Lauer asked him how he felt about being covered up on a magazine cover - which he was on in a picture with his wife and daughters - by a blurb about Jessica Simpson? His reply was that apparently Jessica was having weight issues (I can't remember his exact words). But the point is that he answered a question, looking at the magazine cover as he did so, and was merely commenting on what the magazine had on its cover. The "reporters" though, would have you believe that for no good reason, and because he happened to have Jessica Simpson on his mind, President Obama spontaneously blurted, "Jessica Simpson is getting fat!" Let's get real...
You can't believe everything that you read. Sometimes you can't even believe what you see. That's why David Copperfield is getting richer every year - his illusions are quite believable.
Therefore, I encourage you to take everything with a grain of salt... or a couple tons depending on the source. Remember that everyone INCLUDING ME writes from their own personal perspective, incapable of being objective.
What do you think?
