To not see this reminder again
Background of the story
July 2014, I published a short article about a single instance of long-established news corporation changing the news so dramatically that it no more means the same as before.
Following you will find a version of that article:
NY Times, A 1984’s News Agency or How New York Times Changed News Over Night
As today I wanted to organise my thoughts from yesterday about child migrants and the NYTimes article about Obama’s meeting, I discovered unexpectedly that the sentences, I read yesterday, doesn’t exist anymore. There was no warning. No evidence that someone has changed what was revealed from the meeting of Obama and Central American leaders. It felt like the reality of yesterday has died out.
Just take a look at some examples to understand what I mean.
You can read in the version which was online yesterday:
In the version which is online now, you read instead:
So the question is whether Mr. Hernandez said such words and if so, why it was deleted, or the reported made up from his imagination.
But this is not just about the president of Honduras. It seems that Obama has also changed his mind about what is his solution for the problem after the meeting. Just take a look:
What do these sentences reveal about Obama’s claim?
If you just think for some seconds, you would easily recognize that what Mr. Obama want is not to solve the problem but to erase the problem from the surface, by forcing the government of Central American countries to convince their people not to be desperate to flee to the US, however they could.
But don’t worry Mr. Obama is a clever person and shouldn’t make such failure in the public, so the New York Times changed his idea into this:
Mr. Obama called the meeting with Presidents Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador to try to strike at the root causes of what he has called a humanitarian crisis on the border between Mexico and the United States.
Maybe the NYTimes reporter had guessed that you may not be happy with this, so they added:
In a joint statement by the four presidents issued by the White House after the meeting, the leaders pledged to “address the underlying causes of migration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater** social and economic opportunity.**” But the White House did not make any announcements about further economic aid for Central America beyond what they have requested from Congress in recent weeks.
Maybe the first time that the NYTimes reporter wrote the article they were somewhat sleepy during the announcement of the statement by the four presidents because the is no sing of the words “social” and “economic opportunity” in the original version. But you know these people are working really hard to deliver the latest and most true news to us, please don’t get mad at them, they deserve some sleep.
The issue of the waves of child migration from central America to the USA is a very important issue but beyond that there are some open questions about the behavior of NYTimes in reporting this meeting to the public for example, why should this report get changed in such a dramatic way? Who is responsible for that?
At the end I think there is an important question that everyone who live in a democracy that depends on media as its fourth pillar, must ask themselves:
How could we prevent media from such behaviors in the future?
As today I have learned that this wasn’t the only instance and that such behaviours won’t happen only about distant themes, as illegal migration of children …
But before going to the main point about the news, let’s first make something clear:
If it has ever happened to you to be the mother or a father with a heart, you should be able to comprehend how desperate the parents should be to put their child in the hands of stranger cause they think, what ever the result, they will have better chances if they raise up there than with them.
The president who calls the few who enable such journey “coyote” is as blind as a monarch of a shattered kingdom, such an individual doesn’t deserve to be the president of a democratic election, cause if you are chosen to govern a nation with lots of problems, instead of calling bunch of smugglers with nasty words, you rather keep your mouth shut and raise a country that everyone wish to live there, than desperately trying to flee from there.
It is no better for Mr Obama, that calls a meeting for exchanging bunch of useless words about few individuals, if that’s all you want do as the best nation in the world for your neighbouring countries is that, when in the same time you spend tons and tons of dollars, talents, times and energy to set men to the moon and democratise the Middle East, either you are a bastard or you give up on acting rational.
With that said, let’s go back to the news.
If as a journalist what you do, is to cover such news in a way that it looks all fine and perfect, instead of covering the fact that this meeting won’t do anything good to these nations, you are an accessary in all these wrongdoings … and the fact that you are sitting in beautiful dresses covering the content of a meeting of men in suit with great power and responsibility won’t make you any better.
Back then I thought it happened because it was a distant theme, but unfortunately now I see, the news don’t follow what is right and wrong, but what the mass want to hear. What their audience will be pleased to hear. It shouldn’t be always pleasant events or bad events, what matters is whether the mass would be pleased, if it would be this way. Yes, Obama should sound smart and the United State’s government always address the root of the problems and not its symptoms, as with illegal child immigration.
I am aware that we live in times when some live in open-relationships and believe sleeping with multiple individuals when the humanity has already discovered the concept of marriage and faithfulness, is open-mindedness instead of moral misery, I don’t wonder that the news who see their faith in pleasing their customers and doing what a journalist is meant to do, think that they are successful in the world.
There are individuals who sleeps with multiple other in exchange of money but at the end of the day it is not only the prostitute who never understand the love but their faithful costumers too.
And if those individuals offer their body in exchange for money, such journalist offer their judgement in exchange of money but at the end of the day it is not only the prostitute of wisdom who as a side result of the exchange for their judgement for money buy intellectual misery but their faithful costumers shares the results with them too.
It is not only the prostitutes of wisdom that should shame but their customers should be ashamed of that too.
And if we lost love by the time we gave up on faithfulness and pre-ordered misery for our souls in advance. The today’s state of media will be the pre-ordered misery on societies scale.
I owe a thank to Hossein for pushing me to write down what I think for him …