Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post - Should newspaper predict the near future of current events?

seanner689 · 04-16-2008, 07:11 PM

I can see a problem with this though, if reporters are going out and reporting potential problems in the hopes that they will be fixed, the actual event (if everything goes well) will not occur. In your case, let's say the media writes something to the extent of "drugs are rampant in jail, Pete can still access heroin". I see a couple of problems with this:

1. The newspapers lose credibility, and rightly so. The papers make these predictions, and the prison makes sure it doesn't happen. If newspapers continually put out front page stories that never materialize, people won't want to read it. Besides, it's not the media's job to be a moral watchdog for society, people should take responsibility for themselves.

2. The fact that events which actually occur make the biggest news, I think, is a very big incentive for people (ie the prison) to do their jobs.

If the news went out and reported that Pete Doherty could possibly get drugs in prison, it would be an unsensational story and once a band-aid was thrown on the problem, it would go out of the news.

The way news is reported now, the reporters don't give the prison instructions on how it should be run, it lets the prison do its thing, and as long as it doesn't screw up, it stays out of the news. I'd rather the news focus on a few screwups than focus on a dozen or so potential problems.

That being said, there are times where something is so certain in the future that a prediction can really emphesize the oversight or corruption. For example, many people were screaming that New Orleans wouldn't be able to withstand a strong hurricane. This helped save lives and also shed some light on the absolutely atrocious planning and maintainance of the levy. A good analogy is with police, they can charge you for some premeditation of a crime (murder) without actually committing that crime, but the majority of the time, people - however suspicious - are not detained/questioned until a crime has been committed. It's just not practical, IMO.

Anyways, just my opinion, but I think there's already too much speculation in the news. Anyone else want to chime in?

04-16-2008, 07:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
seanner689 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 101	I can see a problem with this though, if reporters are going out and reporting potential problems in the hopes that they will be fixed, the actual event (if everything goes well) will not occur. In your case, let's say the media writes something to the extent of "drugs are rampant in jail, Pete can still access heroin". I see a couple of problems with this: 1. The newspapers lose credibility, and rightly so. The papers make these predictions, and the prison makes sure it doesn't happen. If newspapers continually put out front page stories that never materialize, people won't want to read it. Besides, it's not the media's job to be a moral watchdog for society, people should take responsibility for themselves. 2. The fact that events which actually occur make the biggest news, I think, is a very big incentive for people (ie the prison) to do their jobs. If the news went out and reported that Pete Doherty could possibly get drugs in prison, it would be an unsensational story and once a band-aid was thrown on the problem, it would go out of the news. The way news is reported now, the reporters don't give the prison instructions on how it should be run, it lets the prison do its thing, and as long as it doesn't screw up, it stays out of the news. I'd rather the news focus on a few screwups than focus on a dozen or so potential problems. That being said, there are times where something is so certain in the future that a prediction can really emphesize the oversight or corruption. For example, many people were screaming that New Orleans wouldn't be able to withstand a strong hurricane. This helped save lives and also shed some light on the absolutely atrocious planning and maintainance of the levy. A good analogy is with police, they can charge you for some premeditation of a crime (murder) without actually committing that crime, but the majority of the time, people - however suspicious - are not detained/questioned until a crime has been committed. It's just not practical, IMO. Anyways, just my opinion, but I think there's already too much speculation in the news. Anyone else want to chime in?