MovieChat Forums > Richard Jewell (2019) Discussion > Lazy and irresponsible media

Lazy and irresponsible media

posted 4 years ago by merkin64 (122)
8 replies | jump to latest

Put aside the Kathy Scruggs debate, and this Clint Eastwood's film makes some serious points about the mainstream media. Richard Jewell was assumed to be guilty based on a faulty criminal profile, that was picked up and reported by lazy journalists chasing a story. Serious newspapers and broadcasters reported supposition as news. This was pre-internet before we had social media etc. Even so, the life of this man and that of his mother was made a living hell. Basic humanity, decency and of course, facts went out of the window. This is not the media we see celebrated in The China Syndrome, The Post, Spotlight or All The President's Men.

[–] liscarkat (17028) 4 years ago

The mainstream media love nothing more than promoting hysteria, even if they have to resort to BS to do it. We are seeing the greatest example of all time right now.

[–] Gary O. (1000) 4 years ago

Agreed. The media at least as they like to see themselves does not exist. As for the reason, part of it is as you say, laziness, but ideology, or political orientation also enters into the equation as well. The mainstream media has a decided tilt to the left, as evidenced by the way they fawned over Obama (he could do no wrong) and the way that they loathe Trump (he is the opposite in that he can seemingly do nothing right.) If I exaggerate, it is not by very much.

This is not a recent trend, as this has been true since the early 1960's, as the heroes of the media have always been the liberal progressives, and their villains have typically been conservatives. And if the conservatives are not downright evil, then they are misguided fools always having their mistakes corrected by the fair-minded heroes of the press.

And I'm getting tired of it.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No, it isn't what you saw in China Syndrome, Post or Spotlight... the reality is journalists are generally lazy fucks that just chase rating and could give a rat's ass about facts. If you gave either one the chance to do a simple but true story that would never make a big splash or a fake story that would get them a job offer in a bigger network they would all choose the fake story because they don't give a damn about the truth only making it big.

[–] Tabbycat (799) 4 years ago

I have to agree that for every one of those proud moments enshrined in a film classic there are many seedy, sad embarrassments left unheralded. I salute director Eastwood for bringing one of the most appalling examples in my lifetime to the big screen.

Fake news wasn’t born in 2016, and it isn’t always due to a lazy press. The problem is the trust in our federal agencies, the ones sworn to find the really bad guys. Is this trust misplaced? It is when the entire investigation hinges on a PROFILE.

Newsflash: A PROFILE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

It is nothing more than a tool used to select people for investigation. It should NEVER be confused with evidence itself. In this case it appears it was, by both the feds and the press.

I never read the Times and other paper’s articles on this story. Wondering if anywhere way down on the third page, paragraph 18, there’s a weak disclaimer like “Despite the flurry of federal activity, independent investigative experts are quick to point out that the FBI has yet to turn up any actual evidence linking suspect Jewell to the bombing. As of now, all they have is a profile matching some aspects of Jewell’s behavior. Profiles are not evidence and are intended only as a starting point for further investigation.”

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yes profiles are a problem, mostly because cops are not the brightest bulbs in the bunch. So when someone points them in one direction like the husband did it when a woman is murdered, that is who they focus on. Now if that husband did it that's not a real problem, but it is when the husband didn't do it because it means they waste time chasing the wrong suspect and even worse some cops are dirty and do illegal things to pin it on who they think is guilty based on a stereotype.

However, in this case the media was just as guilty as the FBI because they both almost worked together to lynch Jewell. And even more disturbing is not what the Times or some paper writes, rather it is the TV networks that jump on lazy train because far more people watch the nightly news and when and if the person goes on trial the networks will have tainted most every potential juror making it difficult for the accused to get a fair trial. I remember at the time of this if you asked anyone about it on the street the overwhelming belief was Jewell did it and that wasn't because people read newspapers it was because talking heads on the networks pushed the Richard did it story in a hard way.

Even today you've got similar things happening like the black guy shot in Georgia. Ask the average person and they'll instantly say the white guys hunted down a jogger and shot him, mostly because the media has played a very short snippet of a piece of video. I don't know what the full story behind what happened was. But I do know there is more to the story than what the media can show in a 8 second video clip of something that obviously involved 10 to 15 minutes of things going on between everyone involved. It would be nice if the media would simply report things in a Joe Friday manner with just the facts and non conjecture.

[–] merkin64 (122) 4 years ago

There is also the added factor of news as a business. Newspapers are also commercial enterprises, making a big splash can boost readership which pleases advertisers. This drives reporters to chase stories in a pack mentality. I remember the Monica Lewinsky scandal which followed Richard Jewell. Any sense of decency was cast aside as the media hordes chased this young girl like wolves. All of them looking for "angle."

[–] JBran (1585) 4 years ago

And it hasn’t changed. Look at the Aaron Hernandez case, media camped outside the house just like Richard Jewell. Although he obviously wasn’t innocent in this case.

[–] duckofprey (1557) 4 years ago

Well, it wasn’t pre-internet/social media - I ran several social media platforms that spanned all of www in 1996 -, but none the ness your point is well taken. Still, even then the Olympics and the bombing were discussed on some of these platforms and that’s just the little piece I was involved witg.