AD PROMOTING ACCURACY IS INACCURATE
A few months ago, our local paper, ran an self-promotional thing talking about how accurate and unbiased they were. Except it appears that the self-promotion on accuracy was... inaccurate. A friend of mine sent the following letter to the paper pointing this out and expounding his views on the media. But the newspaper refused to publish it; they said that the letter trashed them really bad. I was really surprised by the newspaper's defensiveness since they frequently publish letters that are far more incendiary (and critical of the paper) than this one. After many exchanges with my friend, the newspaper has allegedly now agreed to run the letter some time in the future. But in the interim, since they've been giving him the runaround for a couple of months, I will publish the letter here. The letter's contents are strictly the view of its author and is republished , er published, with his permission.




Dear Editor:
Our press has become increasingly inaccurate and biased. It’s an obvious problem. Perhaps in response to the Jayson Blair debacle or the new FCC rulings, the Post-Star ran a clever defensive ad in today’s paper. A glass containing water is shown. The print reads, “Some people say the glass is half empty. Some people say the glass is half full. We say it’s 4 ounces of water in an 8 ounce glass. That’s fair. That’s accurate. That’s unbiased.”


I have to confess that I laughed out loud upon reading the ad. The glass in question isn't cylindrical. It’s a typical water glass, wider at the top, tapered at the bottom. After some measuring and a quick experiment at home, I found that the average tapered glass, as expected, only holds about 1/3 of the total possible volume in its bottom “half”. An accurate reporting of this picture, without the prideful and editorial boast of non-bias, would have read, “We say it’s 2 1/3 ounces of water in an 8 ounce glass.” Anyone with their thinking cap on can see that this ad promoting accuracy, is ... INACCURATE!


Most Americans recognize that their media is overrun with bias. When media defends itself, it often mistakenly assumes that the angry info-consumer is speaking of a right- or left-wing bias. Most of us who read are sophisticated enough to see that true media bias exists in the SELECTION of what is newsworthy, and not necessarily any individual bias. The people who decide which news will make the paper and which news won't can horribly pervert and warp our world view by denying us access to news that is entirely relevant.


What is more important to the average American; Monica Lewinsky or the passing of NAFTA? Bush’s Fighter Jet photo-op or his imperialist Pax Americana? Palestinian suicide bombings or Israeli occupation and brutality? Mass media shows its true colors by choosing to UNDERREPORT news that is not in line with the ideologies of its corporate parents. It regularly parrots what it is “fed” by wire service, government, corporate and military sources alike, without any fact checking at all! The “nouveau press” rarely investigates anything! How can the Post-Star boast about non-bias when it can't even use a ruler and a measuring cup to prop up its own claims of accuracy? I love you guys, but ... Give me a break!


Sincerely,

Matt Funiciello