NOT FAKE NEWS

Fred Faour: Stop blaming the "media" and start looking in the mirror when it comes to news

Fred Faour: Stop blaming the "media" and start looking in the mirror when it comes to news
Washington Post Chief Correspondent Dan Balz (L); Judy Woodruff (C), anchor and managing editor of PBS' 'NewsHour' and Bret Baier (R), chief political anchor at Fox News, discuss news. Win McNamee/Getty Images

Media

noun

  1. a plural of medium.

  2. (usually used with a plural verb) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely.

One of the most popular games on the internet these days is to blame the media for everything. “The media says this.” “The media is responsible for this.” “The media is fake news.”

In reality, the “media” is a reflection of society. So we should be blaming ourselves.

Still, there is often an element of truth to blanket statements, which is why people believe them. But media bashing needs to be more specific. Of course, that requires rational thought and a discerning mind, and who has time for that?

First off, what is the definition of the media of which we speak? Newspapers? Radio? TV? Is Alex Jones media? Is Bill Maher? By the textbook definition, yes, all of the above. It’s that vague bit in the definition above:  “that reach or influence people widely.”

That encompasses a LOT of people. By that definition, we need to include the Kardashians as media. But just because there is a wide influence, it does not mean that is where we should get our news. We need to understand how to define the types of media, and first and foremost that means knowing the difference between “news” and “influencers.” Most people don’t, because those lines are blurred at the source. They have become so flexible we have no idea what is “news” and what is opinion. And that’s a serious concern. We have become a society of sound bytes, hot takes, and divisive opinions taken as fact.

Traditional media outlets have done their part to foster this mentality. Shoddy reporting, poor, biased commentary that is presented as news and just outright sloppiness has eroded public confidence. When the New York Times had a reporter (Jayson Blair) cooking sources in its stories, it did more damage than anyone could have imagined, because it ruined public trust and helped create this new age of opinion over substance, and gave a voice to those whose only purpose is to discredit actual news sources.

While Fox News often takes the brunt of this type of criticism, mainly because they are entertainment that calls themselves “news,” the reality is this is prevalent throughout all forms of media. For years, many people got their “news” from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Stewart was an entertainer, not a news source. That did not stop people from accepting his commentary as truth, as they do with no shortage of commentators -- or influencers -- now.

We live in a society where even the president decries “Fake News” with everything he disagrees with. “Fake News” is not a take we dislike. It means something is completely made up. But when presumably reliable news sources get something wrong, that is what it is branded these days. And they do get things wrong, especially in an Internet world where it is more important to be first than right. That leads to mistakes.

Frankly, it all started with sports. Many years ago, we began blurring the lines between sports reporting and sports commentary. What we thought became more important than what actually happened. This was fine for sports, because it is merely entertainment and not life and death. But when that model moved into things that actually matter -- politics, social stances, serious issues -- it eroded the fabric of society.

It’s no surprise that people want to blame the “media” for everything now. Because the “media” brought it on themselves. And as consumers of that, we bought right in.

It all comes down to definitions. We shorten everything now because we are too busy to think about it. For instance, I host a “Sports Talk” show. But if you have ever listened to The Blitz (4-7 p.m. Monday through Friday on ESPN 97.5) it is about everything happening in the world, our personal lives, TV, movies, entertainment. And also sports. But that does not fit our need for quick definitions.

If I chose to host a political show instead, it would have to be defined as a “conservative talk show” or a “liberal talk show,” because let’s face it, who would listen to a show that talked politics without a perceived bias? So the easy thing is to brand content with one or two words and put no more thought into it, because we as consumers aren’t thinking about it.

So who can we trust? This is the root problem. I get my news from the Associated Press. But the organization also does commentary and has opinions on subjects. It shouldn’t, because people confuse that with news, no matter how carefully it is branded. There is nothing wrong with opinions and commentary based on actual news. Discourse is a good thing. But that is not what is happening in rest of the media world.

Having said that, blaming media in general is silly. It is like saying “police officers are corrupt.” Which ones? HPD? Constables? Harris County Sheriff’s Department? HISD police? Metro police? DPS? That’s just in the Houston area alone. A single police officer might be corrupt. But they all aren’t, and every police organization is not. But that does not make for good sound bytes. We lump everyone in together because it is easy. And lazy. We are too busy in our lives to think beyond the 240 characters of Twitter.

The same rationale goes for “media.” What type of media? TV? Radio? Internet? Opinion? News? A single member of the media might be sloppy and making things up. But not all of us do; not everyone should be painted with the same bold strokes.

So we have a trust issue.

Because of that, somehow we have to relearn what is opinion and what is news, and accept that even the most trusted news outlets make mistakes. That does not make them corrupt or “fake news.” It makes them fallible. It makes them human. But for some reason we demand perfection -- unless we agree with the source’s premise, in which case no further thought is necessary, even if it turns out to be completely wrong. And we should be alarmed by this, because we are headed to a world where the newsmakers control the news. It goes back to sports. The major leagues all have their own web sites and networks. They determine what the news will be. What happens when that model finally takes over the rest of American media? Politics? Religion? We will get filtered news, and who will know what the truth really is at that point? And we are so close to that paradigm now, we should be concerned.

However, accepting that does not fit our short take, don’t-use-our-brains narrative. “Oh, look, they lied about this. They can’t be trusted. Fake news.” Traditional news sources -- and by that I mean primarily the print world -- are dying off. Reading a story, analyzing the facts and developing our own opinions is a lost art. Subtle bias has become so prevalent that we pick out the buzzwords and let our brain fill in the rest, because who has time to think?

What is the solution? A more well defined dichotomy. Trusted news sources should stop trying to be commentators and not rush to publish stories just to be first. Opinion mongers should not define themselves as news. We as consumers should make sure we know the difference, and apply rational thought.

Yes, it’s easy to blame the nebulous, undefinable “media.” That requires no thinking, no critical analysis. But we as consumers of all the different forms of media need to take it upon ourselves to define what it is we are actually absorbing.

The “media” brought this distrust on itself. But we the people are the real culprits. And until we realize that, our democracy is headed to a dark place.

 

Most Popular

SportsMap Emails
Are Awesome

Listen Live

ESPN Houston 97.5 FM
The Rockets are in it to win it this year. Composite Getty Image.

While the rolling Astros have a week of possible World Series preview matchups against the Phillies and Cubs, it’s the Rockets who made the biggest local sports headline with their acquisition of Kevin Durant. What a move! Of course there is risk involved in trading for a guy soon to turn 37 years old and who carries an injury history, but balancing risk vs. reward is a part of the game. This is a fabulous move for the Rockets. It’s understood that there are dissenters to this view. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including people with the wrong opinion! Let’s dig in.

The Rockets had a wonderful season in winning 52 games before their disappointing first-round playoff loss to the Warriors, but like everyone else in the Western Conference, they were nowhere close to Oklahoma City’s caliber. While they finished second in the West, the Rockets only finished four games ahead of the play-in. That letting the stew simmer with further growth among their young players would yield true championship contention was no given for 2025-26 or beyond.

Kevin Durant is one of the 10 greatest offensive players the NBA has ever seen. Among his current contemporaries only Stephen Curry and Nikola Jokic make that list. For instance, Durant offensively has clearly been better than the late and legendary Kobe Bryant. To view it from a Houston perspective, Durant has been an indisputably greater offensive force than the amazing Hakeem Olajuwon. But this is not a nostalgia trip in which the Rockets are trading for a guy based on what he used to be. While Durant could hit the wall at any point, living in fear that it’s about to happen is no way to live because KD, approaching his 18th NBA season, is still an elite offensive player.

As to the durability concern, Durant played more games (62) this past season than did Fred VanVleet, Jabari Smith, and Tari Eason. The season before he played more games (75) than did VanVleet, Dillon Brooks, and Alperen Sengun. In each of the last two seasons Durant averaged more minutes per game (36.9) than any Rocket. That was stupid and/or desperate of the Suns, the Rockets will be smarter. Not that the workload eroded Durant’s production or efficiency. Over the two seasons he averaged almost 27 points per game while shooting 52 percent from the floor, 42 percent from behind the three-point line, and 85 percent from the free throw line. Awesomeness. The Rockets made the leap to being a very good team despite a frankly crummy half-court offense. The Rockets ranked 21st among the 30 NBA teams in three-point percentage, and dead last in free throw percentage. Amen Thompson has an array of skills and looks poised to be a unique star. Alas, Thompson has no credible jump shot. VanVleet is not a creator, Smith has limited handle. Adding Durant directly addresses the Rockets’ most glaring weakness.

The price the Rockets paid was in the big picture, minimal, unless you think Jalen Green is going to become a bonafide star. Green is still just 23 years old and spectacular athletically, but nothing he has done over four pro seasons suggests he’s on the cusp of greatness. In no season has Green even shot the league average from the floor or from three. His defense has never been as good as it should be given his athleticism. Compared to some other two-guards who made the NBA move one year removed from high school, four seasons into his career Green is waaaaaay behind where Shae Gilgeous-Alexander, Anthony Edwards, and Devin Booker were four seasons in, and now well behind his draft classmate Cade Cunningham. Dillon Brooks was a solid pro in two seasons here and shot a career-best from three in 2024-2025, but he’s being replaced by Kevin Durant! In terms of the draft pick capital sent to Phoenix, five second round picks are essentially meaningless. The Rockets have multiple extra first round picks in the coming years. As for the sole first-rounder dealt away, whichever player the Rockets would have taken 10th Wednesday night would have been rather unlikely to crack the playing rotation.

VanVleet signs extension

Re-signing Fred VanVleet to a two-year, 50 million dollar guarantee is sensible. In a vacuum, VanVleet was substantially overpaid at the over 40 mil he made per season the last two. He’s a middle-of-the-pack starting point guard. But his professionalism and headiness brought major value to the Rockets’ kiddie corps while their payroll was otherwise very low. Ideally, Reed Sheppard makes a leap to look like an NBA lead guard in his second season, after a pretty much zippo of a rookie campaign. Sheppard is supposed to be a lights-out shooter. For the Rockets to max out, they need two sharpshooters on the court to balance Thompson’s presence.

For Astro-centric conversation, join Brandon Strange, Josh Jordan, and me for the Stone Cold ‘Stros podcast which drops each Monday afternoon, with an additional episode now on Thursday. Click here to catch!

_____________________________________________

*Looking to get the word out about your business, products, or services? Consider advertising on SportsMap! It's a great way to get in front of Houston sports fans. Click the link below for more information!

https://houston.sportsmap.com/advertise

SportsMap Emails
Are Awesome