At 46.75 years-old, I've seen more than one occasion where the news media got their facts wrong about an incident and then do a retraction, but I think this video from YouTube is the first time I've seen them take incorrect information and seemingly build on it. The video is about fifteen minutes of news coverage of the gas line explosion in San Bruno that occurred last Thursday, September 9. 2010. Originating from the CBS affiliate in San Bruno, they report that the blast is the result of a plane crash and, despite information to the contrary from the manager of the local airport, continue to say that is the cause for the duration of the report. My question is how can you take something that doesn't even remotely have the appearance of what you're reporting it to be and not verify what you're saying is actually what is occurring?
If you haven't already, stop and watch the video and, more importantly, listen to the news anchors talking. To hear them talking they knew without question that the raging flames they were seeing were caused by a plane crash. They even went as far as to say they had an eyewitness who "saw the tail of the plane as it went down." How could someone be an eyewitness to something that never happened? If I had been the news director - or the general manager - of that CBS affiliate I would have gone to commercial and called them aside and told them to cool it. If they didn't, I would have revisited the issue the next morning and gave them several days (off) to review their comments. Right or wrong?
Until next time . . .
Until next time . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment