Interpreter arrested after agreeing to help police.
This story is an example of what I see the news media accepting as ‘business as usual’. Let’s analyze this particular story to illustrate my point.
Monica Montoya was on her way to her daughters school and helped police interpret for an accident victim in Roselle Park New Jersey.
Now this is the beginning of the story and this much is true. The news media added two different views on even this simple truth.
One story I heard was that she was driving to her daughters school when she came upon an accident victim who was hit by a van and she stopped to offer assistance. The police arrived and asked her to interpret for the victim, which she agreed to do.
Another version was that she was walking to her daughters school, passing the scene of the accident, when the police stopped her to ask if she would interpret for the victim, which she agreed to do.
The first version, of course, makes her look like a true samaritan. the second version makes her look like she was 'commandeered'. Which version is true? It only happened one way people.
So far neither version mentioned whether the victim was a pedestrian hit by a van or if she was driving and was hit by the van. You might say ‘this detail is unimportant’ and you would be correct but the two different versions already chose to get into ‘some’ detail by saying it was a van, not just an automobile accident. So, the media, in both cases, already opened that door.
Continuing with the story, both versions said the reason for the arrest is that she was uncooperative after both versions reported she was co-operating. I heard her crying, as the officer was taking her to a squad car in handcuffs, that she needs to get her child from school. Since I have already heard two different versions of the story, the only thing I know for certain is that there was an accident of some sort, she was on her way to her daughters school, she helped police, she was arrested. I cannot believe either reporters interpretation. And since the public rarely ever hears a follow-up to a story, unless it is sensational enough, we may never know what really happened at the scene.
The bottom-line here is that the news media, in their zeal to get a story to the public ‘first’ will say whatever they first interpret instead of getting the facts. This is why there are always so many versions of any story. We the public are left to sort through ‘the facts as presented’ to determine the truth. The press is supposed to give us the facts, not their interpretations and then let us figure out what the truth really is.
Who came up with this concept of ‘just throw words out there, we’ll fill in the facts later’? This concept is born out of the news medias need to be ‘the first’ or ‘exclusive’. The public doesn’t care about exclusivity or who gets the story out there first. We care about the truth through the facts not someone’s interpretation of them.
Another thing, while I am on the topic of news media, why do you feel the need to dramatize a story?
As a news consumer, whenever a story is brought to my attention, I I want to know what the real story is. I don’t want to hear one persons interpretation of the story. Why are there so many different versions? Why can’t the media get the story straight the first time?
Being first is not always the best goal when it comes to the news. You need to stop being so competitive and give us the facts the first time. If you don’t know the facts then say so. We will wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment