This brings to mind something that nearly everyone always agrees with when I mention but nobody really thinks about and is a real eye-opener in terms of the media.
Everyone think back to a time when you were either interviewed, were a witness to something or got a mention of some kind in the media. It's happened to everyone at some point in their lives. Is it not true that virtually
every time there was some inaccuracy involved--either they screw your name up, state something that outright didn't happen, omit something that did happen or just generally confuse the details?
We pass these off as isolated incidents but I do not buy that for one second. The only explanation is that the media is frightfully and horrifyingly inaccurate. This is a very difficult concept to come to terms with but I promise you everyone's personal experience with the media is almost always the same--littered with inaccuracy.
One only knows something for sure when it involves them and can state with 100% certainty it didn't happen that way which obviously isn't that often for most average joes. 99.99999% of the media we are exposed to can't be confirmed by the general reader as they weren't there or a part of it so we naturally assume it's accurate. But I wonder why it is that nearly everyone I've ever met takes issue with the reporting of an event they were a party to?