Having found an error in a Chicago Tribune article, I wrote the author and kindly told him he had made a mistake. No correction, and quite frankly, I think one is called for.
The Tribune was writing an article on the Democratic Senatorial Primary for Illinois' junior seat. At the end of the article, the reporter, a Mr. David Mendell, threw in a line about 3 other candidates, chosen to catch the eye. One, and the one that really did catch my eye was Downstate coal miner Vic Roberts. So I do a quick google search, first thing that pops up is Vic Roberts' Senatorial website where he announces with red font at the top of the page that his candidacy ended 2 weeks ago.
Now, that took all of 15 seconds, tops. Why is the Tribune incapable of engaging in that minimal level of fact-checking? It's all the more mind-boggling considering the plagarism incident of about two weeks ago when the Tribune foolishly published an excerpt from a popular book, signed by someone who had nothing to do with the book. Classic reporting. Let's get a story out, forget about the facts, forget about the effect errors and lies have on the public and the role that reporting is meant to have in this society and let's just pretend like we're above it all.
It's a shame the public doesn't have the ability to compel the media to hold itself to higher standards. The United States allows media a greater legal protection because it is meant to provide citizens with the information they need to be productive, coherent and relevant players in a representative democracy. With spotty efforts at reporting and a greater interest in getting a good turn of phrase than the correct information, it is time for oversight of media and a repeal of its privileged status.
Until the media can prove that it fulfills its social purpose, it should no longer reap the benefits of special Constitutional protection.