Why I generally hate the traditional media

I really do generally hate the traditional media. The reason why I say "generally" because the definition of a traditional media is "generally" broad. Obviously the CNNs, and Foxes, and New York Times of the world are considered traditional, but then we get into National Enquirer, and National Review, and other national, regional or otherwise publications, with or without the online presence, and what do you call traditional anyway?

But that isn't what this post is about. It is about the much damage that media does to the public opinion in their race to save their failing business models and make a buck.

Few weeks ago, I was in Las Vegas for a tradeshow, and on the way back, I got an SMS from a friend who was watching CNN and the big headline was the terrorist scare in Las Vegas. As I am driving down the strip and reading the message, I am dumbfounded - what is that all about. So I ask my friend (the passenger) to look up what's going on. He naturally finds the ricin story, and even an indication on CNN online that authorities believe there is no connection between ricin and any terrorist activity. Yet, CNN felt compelled to headline their TV story with an obviously false, and provocative title. As liberal as they are perceived, CNN this time sided with the President Bush in provoking fear? Although I wanted to make a post on that, I was too busy the past few weeks and sort of let it drop. Until today.

I open up my browser, and the first thing I see is the headline from NY Times: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring". As I read the article, it obviously became clear that he solicited a prostitute. Further reading on the topic has uncovered similar stories about Gov. Spitzer's "involvement" with a prostitution ring.

Let me be perfectly clear on this - I applauded Mr. Spitzer for the work he did as an US attorney, I supported his bid for the governor, and I think he deserves absolutely everything that is coming to him because of what he did - all of the family troubles, political exile, public ridiculing, and eternal damnation.

But the post is not about the Governor, but the low-life tactics used by the New York Times, and others, to bring this story to life. Naturally, the editors and writers in these fine establishments will argue that "involved" has many different meanings. In theory, they will be correct, but practically speaking, they have suggested that Gov. Spitzer was somehow part of the ring - managed it, invested in it, covered it, whatever - but he was involved, which is how most of us read the headline anyway. Soliciting a prostitute is not the same as being involved in a prostitution ring. Heck, I'd even allow that someone may do so in a moment of weakness, but being involved in the operation is a long standing deliberate act that violates at least 2 dozen or so US and international laws.

But what does NY Times care? Even though a headline of "Eliot Spitzer Solicited a Prostitute" would have been enough to draw attention and readership, and would have displayed at least some adherence to journalistic principles, they are after shock-and-awe affect, they are after blowing up an elephant out of a fly (as we used to say in Russia), and they are continuing their tradition of .. supporting lies in journalism.

So the CNN and NY Times others have made a mistake where I (or otherwise) could call them out on it. But what if it something that we cannot possibly confirm or deny. How are we to trust them on something exclusive, if they make such a blatant disregard of truth in their daily operations? Imagine if the hundreds of thousands were watching their TVs in Las Vegas instead of sleeping off their hangovers or playing the slots, and actually saw what CNN said about Las Vegas? Imagine the theories that will pop-up now as a result of Times calling Spitzer's act of solicitation an "involvement"?

Unbelievable, yet expected ....