Peterson and the Arts....

I'm not sure what to say..

I've already mentioned that the press can't really be trusted..

So the question is: how can I offer a valid opinion of the Scott Peterson case when I'm *trusting* the press that I've already identified as someone I *can't trust*??

The best illustration I can offer is this:

The photograph vs. the painting..

At least with a photograph one can decide for themselves what the important elements are of the picture..

In a painting, the artist decides for you - what the important element is for you to gravitate towards..

The press *should* be taking photographs and differentiate when they are painting the landscape.. I'm not saying that the press shouldn't be entitled to free speech - but I don't like how the mediums have been blended..

Everyday, there's more paint that ends up on these photographs - in many cases they cover up what may be very important pieces of the picture.. So the portrayal by the press is no more accurate than the artist painting a landscape.. It's a depiction - a representation of what the artist sees, feels, and believes..

But the analogy goes deeper..

I'm a photographer..

I take a lot of pictures..

I can and have selectively chosen vantage points, depths of field, subjects, and nuances that may or may not project what a given landscape may *actually* be.. When I take pictures, I decide what I see, what I feel and what I believe too.. These photographs are an extension of my inner artistry.. Therefore one can't expect that what I'm demonstrating in my pictures can automatically be assumed as an accurate representation, an identical portrayal of what the landscape is..

So if the press has artists and photographers that can selectively pick and choose what is printed - how can we trust that we are hearing, watching and reading everything?? Are you comfortable with a skewed, limited, cropped, edited, revised and otherwise distorted version of accounts??

We can all jump on the bandwagon and accuse Peterson of doing the horrible things to his wife and child.. We can believe that there was absolutely no doubt that anyone BUT Scott could've done this.. We can choose to accept the press' account, portrayal, and canvas as gospel of the proceedings.....

But when you can identify the fundamental flaw in journalism today, one seriously has to question what is the rest of the story.. If I want to believe that Scott is innocent - all I have to do is find the appropriate news organization that will report a favorable outcome according to how I believe.. If I want to believe that Scott is guilty - then I'll do the exact same thing; finding those news stories that portray him the way I'm most comfortable with..

Is this what journalism should be?? A selective choice to decide which museum, which art gallery, which artist you choose to put your faith behind??

When I read news accounts online - I sometimes Google it to see how the news fares against other news/reporting organizations.. An interesting portrayal of this bias recently came out of the whole Rumsfeld Q&A.. There is a host of multiple accounts, many different sets of canvases, paints and brushes used to portray, to spin, to otherwise distort what happened..

Journalists focused on the soldiers..
Journalists focused on the embedded reporter..
Journalists focused on Rumsfeld and the administration..
Journalists focused on the accusation of the ill-equipped vehicles..

Different slants
Different canvases
Different brushes..

Different views
Different voices
Different beliefs..


So has anyone asked the real question:
Exactly *why* should anyone trust what is reported anymore??