When It Comes to Media, You Have Read Between the Lines
I have dealt with the media for over forty years and have to say for the most part, I've gotten a pretty fair shake most of the time. The interviews I've done have almost always been presented in the spirit in which they were given and the critical reviews of the shows were honestly critiqued from the point of view and the ability of the reporter who reviewed them.
However, I have also experienced the other side of the coin when a critic, either by ignorance or choice, doesn't understand the music he's listening to or considers it beneath him and writes some scathing piece of tripe that reflects neither the quality of the performance nor the reaction of the folks who bought the tickets.
The truth of the matter is that I don't need a review from a critic, good or bad, to tell me when my band has rocked the house and pleased the crowd, I've been doing it, in many cases, before said critic was even born.
But the point being, if someone who hadn't attended the concert read the review and that was their only means of knowing what went on at the show, they would draw the conclusion that the performance was bad, and that is exactly what is happening in America today. Too many people read or watch a biased news source, that's all they know, and they draw their conclusions accordingly.
Some reporters are downright mean; especially sports reporters - who, win, lose, or draw - can never find anything good to say about the home team. I saw a piece by a Denver sports writer some years ago which said he hoped the Broncos didn't go back to the Super Bowl because losing was too embarrassing.
How cynical can you get?
The point that I'm making is that the media is just like every other business, good guys, bad guys, qualified and unqualified, fair and accurate and agenda driven, and therein is the problem.
When the media are agenda-driven, it means they don't report the news anymore - at least, not the news that doesn't fit their agenda, and even the news they do report is slanted to present an issue or a personality in a favorable or unfavorable light, depending on the disposition of the issue and the opinion of the personality.
One of the most atrocious torture, rape and murder cases in history took place in Knoxville, Tennessee a few years ago. It was something straight out of a horror story involving a young college girl and her boyfriend, who were both repeatedly raped, beaten, mutilated and finally murdered, but not until the girl had bleach poured into her mouth in an attempt to erase DNA evidence.
I live less than two hundred miles from Knoxville and never heard a word about this story until months after it took place.
Now, which story is more horrible, the Trayvon Martin case or this case?
Yet, not one network or cable story, no New York Times, no Washington Post, no 60 Minutes, hardly even any headlines in the local Nashville media.
Simple, it was black on white crime and just didn't fit the template of the agenda being advanced by most media these days.
Until the advent of Fox News a few years ago, the three major networks had a monopoly on reporting the news, picking what stories they broadcast and coloring the ones they did broadcast to suit themselves.
Fox doesn't hesitate to go against the grain, presents both sides of a story and let the viewer decide which side to come down on and the rest of the media world hates them for tearing their playhouse down.
The lion's share of major media these days is agenda-driven which makes for an uninformed public, which makes for a herd mentality of people who only know what they're fed and believe whatever they're told, and people that's a dangerous situation.
Dig deep, find the truth, it's available but sometimes we have to read between the lines to get at it.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America