carrying over from garbage bin.
Like I said there, I don't disagree with all that he says. I also am not personally qualified/knowledgeable (nor do I doubt is anyone on ffr) to agree/disagree knowledgeably with some of his positions.
My main beef with stossel is really his whole style in general. I grant him the right to do what he does the way he does it, but it infuriates me that people might be taking him more seriously than they ought to because of that right. Stossel is an accusative and cavalier journalist. Rather than sitting in between two or more opposing sides of an issue and researching either side, Stossel prefers to pick one side and (selectively?) research that. The only airtime he gives to the opposing viewpoint is what the people he's interviewing say, and in this way he can control (by his line of questioning) not only what the interviewee can say, but also, and more importantly, what the audience sees and (via Stossel's own narrative voice-overs) how they should feel about it, rather than letting them decide for themselves. And really, I think what I can't stomach about him most is just that: his overt manipulation of the audience. I know it's allowed, I know there's nothing that can stop him, I just flat out hate it, on principle.
Anyway.
Here's some specific things I've found that I really hate. This is from abc's website from a promo for his book.
Ok. So it seems that what he's saying is that it's a myth that guns are bad. Fine. So now he has to show that the perception of guns as bad is incorrect. Perhaps he will say that guns are not in fact bad, but good. That might be one way to show that guns are not bad, and therefore that it's a myth that they are. Perhaps he will find another way. Let's see.
Is America really notorious for its culture of gun violence? I don't know, I guess it might. Chances are that the rest of the public is with me. Little meaningless transitional statements like this serve only to perpetuate the media stereotypes Stossel likes to fight, in reality. But let's move on.
Next a concession, fair. And then he accuses the media of exaggerating these deaths, fair enough as well, although sources would be nice. Still nothing about why guns aren't bad. Or am I to believe that guns don't become bad until they kill thousands of kids instead of just a few? I don't think so.
Ah he's anticipated my criticism and suitably deflected. And now gun control has been mentioned. Is he going to be criticizing gun control? I thought this was about why it's a myth that guns are bad.
Oh, so he is going to be criticizing gun control. More importantly, he's saying that it's ineffective. Well that's ok I suppose. But why is it a myth that guns are bad?
Now we finally get to the main point. Or do we? Why is it a myth that guns are bad? Ok, maybe it's a myth that concealed carry laws are bad. But that doesn't necessarily mean that guns themselves aren't "bad". Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, the point is that Stossel has posited a thesis he doesn't support only in order to grab his audience's attention. Wrong? Morally, I think so.
Also, notice how he reduces things to simplistic generalities. "Some" women... who? "Many" people... how many? So ok, none of the states reported an upsurge in gun crime. What about accidental gun deaths caused from kids finding their parents' weapons? Seems like an important question to me that he leaves unanswered.
And are the felons in maximum security facilities really the authoritative source that the Brady Gun Control Law is ineffective?
And what about a potential solution? Should we have no gun control or background checks? Should everyone carry their own weapons? What?
Second piece of evidence I'll cite is this piece ripping his anti-organic foods piece. This is fairly well publicized, but basically what happened is John Stossel lied and falsely reported scientific data that made it seem like non-organic food didn't have any pesticide residue on it, when all the researchers tested for was bacteria residue, not pesticide residue. Stossel was actually eventually forced to publically apologize for this. Here's one old link dealing with it: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1727
I'm too tired now to go into his dismissal of global warming. perhaps tomorrow.
To summarize: I dislike John Stossel for his brazen approach to journalism that sacrifices a careful and balanced approach to stories for one that is sensationalistic, accusatory and self-glorifying. There's alot wrong with the media, and people like Stossel, supposedly advocates for the people, aren't helping by such unprofessionalism. It becomes less about telling the truth and more about telling a story (something, ironically, that Stossel himself complains about). Yet instead of playing to the audience's fear, he plays to their sense of indignation, makes them seem like they've had blinders over their eyes and that he's going to show them the truth, and for that the audience places their trust in him. And sometimes he may well be telling the truth. Yet sometimes it might just be his interpretation. And sometimes it might just be flat out wrong, like with the organic produce. He represents, to me, at least, the worst kind of journalism: the kind that thinks it's on the side of the audience but in reality is an affront to their intelligence by sacrificing any wholehearted attempt at balanced reporting.
Like I said there, I don't disagree with all that he says. I also am not personally qualified/knowledgeable (nor do I doubt is anyone on ffr) to agree/disagree knowledgeably with some of his positions.
My main beef with stossel is really his whole style in general. I grant him the right to do what he does the way he does it, but it infuriates me that people might be taking him more seriously than they ought to because of that right. Stossel is an accusative and cavalier journalist. Rather than sitting in between two or more opposing sides of an issue and researching either side, Stossel prefers to pick one side and (selectively?) research that. The only airtime he gives to the opposing viewpoint is what the people he's interviewing say, and in this way he can control (by his line of questioning) not only what the interviewee can say, but also, and more importantly, what the audience sees and (via Stossel's own narrative voice-overs) how they should feel about it, rather than letting them decide for themselves. And really, I think what I can't stomach about him most is just that: his overt manipulation of the audience. I know it's allowed, I know there's nothing that can stop him, I just flat out hate it, on principle.
Anyway.
Here's some specific things I've found that I really hate. This is from abc's website from a promo for his book.
Originally posted by John Stossel
Originally posted by John Stossel
Next a concession, fair. And then he accuses the media of exaggerating these deaths, fair enough as well, although sources would be nice. Still nothing about why guns aren't bad. Or am I to believe that guns don't become bad until they kill thousands of kids instead of just a few? I don't think so.
Originally posted by John Stossel
Originally posted by John Stossel
Originally posted by John Stossel
Also, notice how he reduces things to simplistic generalities. "Some" women... who? "Many" people... how many? So ok, none of the states reported an upsurge in gun crime. What about accidental gun deaths caused from kids finding their parents' weapons? Seems like an important question to me that he leaves unanswered.
And are the felons in maximum security facilities really the authoritative source that the Brady Gun Control Law is ineffective?
And what about a potential solution? Should we have no gun control or background checks? Should everyone carry their own weapons? What?
Second piece of evidence I'll cite is this piece ripping his anti-organic foods piece. This is fairly well publicized, but basically what happened is John Stossel lied and falsely reported scientific data that made it seem like non-organic food didn't have any pesticide residue on it, when all the researchers tested for was bacteria residue, not pesticide residue. Stossel was actually eventually forced to publically apologize for this. Here's one old link dealing with it: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1727
I'm too tired now to go into his dismissal of global warming. perhaps tomorrow.
To summarize: I dislike John Stossel for his brazen approach to journalism that sacrifices a careful and balanced approach to stories for one that is sensationalistic, accusatory and self-glorifying. There's alot wrong with the media, and people like Stossel, supposedly advocates for the people, aren't helping by such unprofessionalism. It becomes less about telling the truth and more about telling a story (something, ironically, that Stossel himself complains about). Yet instead of playing to the audience's fear, he plays to their sense of indignation, makes them seem like they've had blinders over their eyes and that he's going to show them the truth, and for that the audience places their trust in him. And sometimes he may well be telling the truth. Yet sometimes it might just be his interpretation. And sometimes it might just be flat out wrong, like with the organic produce. He represents, to me, at least, the worst kind of journalism: the kind that thinks it's on the side of the audience but in reality is an affront to their intelligence by sacrificing any wholehearted attempt at balanced reporting.
Comment