In the 1950's my high school English teacher held a Masters degree in Journalism. As a result the three Cs known as "Clear, concise, correct" were drummed into me. Looking at today's media and people in public positions, it appears that "correct" is not so important anymore.

Later, in college English we did a Historical research paper. One of the rules we were given was that factual material should be backed up by three independent sources.

A photography course I took had an extensive discussion about the ethics of staging pictures. This didn't even have to do with news but with such things a getting a picture of a subject coming down a staircase. Is it OK to have the subject reenact the movements for a more effective picture?

After college I worked on a small town newspaper. Although I only spent a couple of years in newspaper work, learned many lessons. One lesson was to subdue my ego. My employer criticized me for statements I made in a news item that seemed like common knowledge to me.. He asked me if I had a PhD in the subject matter. I said no. Then what made me an expert in that field. When I couldn't answer, he strongly suggested I attribute the statement to someone who was a recognized expert. Subsequently, I did verify the statement with a legitimate source and documented the source..



What happened to such standards?

In recent years I have seen established news agencies such as Associated Press expressing opinions without any documentation. These opinions are in what are supposed to be a straight news item. Furthermore, the opinions are indirectly inserted by use of modifiers. I've seen stories about polls that distort the statistics involved. For example, opinion statistics on abortion usually show that most people are against abortion on demand but do not favor an outright ban, yet a headline will declare strong support for abortion. Misleading?

There seems to be a prevalence of unnamed sources for stories. In other words, sources that cannot be verified. What's worse is there are several documented cases of news being faked. The most notorious being Dan Rather's attempt to slander the President with forged documents. Isn't forging government documents a crime?

Euphemisms are widely used and is, in effect, a lie because it is meant to deceive the reader or listener/viewer. For example, calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers is meant to make it appear that the people who came into the country contrary to the law are not really lawbreakers but merely mislaid some paperwork. Likewise, attempts are made to blur the difference between those who immigrated following proper procedures and those that don't by just referring to immigrants without distinguishing. Usually this is done by inferring that those against illegal immigration are also against those who come properly. Likewise, for a long time the press referred to terrorists as insurgents.

Also, when I was young there was some wariness to admit to certain political associations or talking about such things. This became known as McCarthyism. We have the same thing today but it is known as political correctness and is semi-official censorship.

I've also seen statements about how we went into the Iraq war to avenge the 9/11 attack on us. Reasons for going into Iraq, rightly or wrongly, was to deter Iraq, from gaining the ability to use weapons of mass destruction. Vengeance for 9/11 would not make sense since Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11, although there are obvious links between Iraq and Bin Laden. Additionally vengeance is not a proper reason for going to war. The object of going to war is generally self defense.

There is also the accusation that the president lied about there being an imminent threat from Iraq. Since the president did not say there was an imminent threat, it is hard to see how he could have been lying about it. He did say that we needed to take action before Iraq BECAME an imminent threat.

On another level, I've seen signs on lawns that say "war is not the answer." How do we know, when they don't state what the question is? I've seen protestors with signs saying "no blood for oil". Now what does that mean? It seems to imply that we went to war for oil. Why do that when it would be cheaper to buy it. Also, it would be smarter to develop our own resources. Therefore, shouldn't the signs say "lets drill for our own oil?

Don Hoglund