Integrity or histrionics

my thanks to jrwoodchuckette for the link
http://wweek.com/editorial/3220/7368/

Those of you (un)fortunate enough to speak with me with regularity know how I feel about the "epidemic" we are "suffering" from meth. I believe the most common phrasing has been something along the lines of "I have never personally met anyone affected by it." Without the hysterical "It's everywhere, it's everywhere" news reports on radio, television, and newsprint, I would probably never heard of meth.
Now, admittedly, my evidence has been strictly anecdotal...then again, judging by the referenced article, so is the epidemic.
And, continuing a theme, that is yet another example of a strong, strong reason to never trust one "news" source for your information. They are respinsible, in today's climate, not for reporting news, for pointing out problems, or for solving problems. News organizations today have one purpose...to sell advertising. And to do that, they need sensationalism.
A couple weeks ago I pointed out a news story of a woman who stopped a school shotting through her courageous actions and how it should have been a headline, an oft-reported newstory. Did you even SEE that article anywhere else? Yet in today's shooting we are on our 7th update...because death sounds better than stopping it when you are trying to "punch up" the news. Tragedy > triumph.
Drugs...same story. Although usage is on the decline and seemingly there are no valid stats about the harm being done, the REPORTING has gone way up...and the consequences are exaggerated.
Beer...I have seen a lot of damage done from that. Marijuana...same deal. Cigarettes? Yep, seen their harm, too. (All these I mean personally. I have personal, actual experience with negative effects from these things). Meth? I have none. Zip. Nada. But from the way it has been reported I would assume meth to be worse than all the rest combined.
Remember: bad things = good ratings for news. That means we, the consumers, have a responsibility to investigate the motivations the news reporters might have for what they report...and what they don't. And for why.
As much as I hate Michael Moore's work for his deceptiveness, manipulation (I would call it outright lies in my personal point of view due to the obvious intent of his misreporting), I try to give credit where credit is do. And he made an excellent point in Bowling for Columbine. Gun violence at one point went DOWN, but reporting of it significantly increased...leading to the general public being led to believe guns were more to be feared than previously.
Appearances replace truth sometimes. Reporting is a key. Molly Ivins makes an interesting claim about the importance of newspapers. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20546
"But while Wall Street doesn't care, nor do many of the people who own and run newspapers, newspapers do, in fact, matter beyond producing profit -- they have a critical role in democracy. It's called a well-informed citizenry."
Sadly, as things such as the Oregonians' myth-driven war on meth, the truth is a well-informed citizenry is simply not possible if we rely solely on the media for our information.