On The Media is produced by:
Good myths die hard. Recent psychological studies suggest journalists' attempts to set the record straight may in fact be perpetuating falsehoods. Shankar Vedantam, columnist at the Washington Post, explains.
Most interesting, relevant and informative! Thank you!
I believe that the findings of the study would be more applicable to the question of a Saddam Hussein -Al qaeda connection if the media were in fact "vigilant" as the hypothetical reporter was described in the piece. How long after the myth of the Hussein-Al queda connection was propagated did the media debunk it? As I recall, the "vigilant" reporter outing the fallacy of this assertion is as much of a myth as the assertion itself. After 9/11, the major media walked in virtual lockstep with the Bush administration in their reporting, puportedly for fear of being portrayed as unpatriotic or insensitive to the catastrophe. I believe the media abandoned their traditional role as watchdog of the government long ago.
I had to think of this excellent piece when I saw a campaign today (here in the Netherlands) from Greenpeace about fish you should not buy because of overfishing.
The campaign very much stresses the fish you should *not* buy... I'm afraid some false memories will start kicking in in a couple of days.
This piece highlights some of the most valuable, practical empirical data on persuasive messaging phenomena I've heard in years. As a public relations professional, I was especially excited to have the study brought to my attention. My hat's off to OTM for giving airtime to such meaningful communications research.
Please keep your comments relevant to this entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments on On the Media are moderated. On the Media reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the onthemedia.org Comment Guidelines before posting.
Back to Episode
