Just lost all respect for the Boston Globe
 

My brother-in-law apparently just "wrote" an article in the Boston Globe. He's a university researcher, so while he writes for work (grant proposals, peer-reviewed journal articles, etc), it's not in publications intended for mass consumption. But he confessed that he didn't really write it. It was written by a ghost writer for the Globe, who had my BIL "edit" it and slap his PhD name on it. Ghostwriter is not mentioned under the headline. My BIL didn't think it was written that well (or at least not his standards), and he had a heck of a time even trying to edit it, as he had limited power to do so--which is something he didn't realize until after the article had been printed, though. He thinks the article was pushed by the corporate benefactors who supported the research.

Now, this is not any sort of political stuff. My BIL work is in the field of health/science. The article is mainly an ad for the corporate sponsor, as it doesn't seem to really push any particular position.

I thought about posting this in PARF, as it certainly has potential political extrapolations, even if this particular example is not PARFy. I'm not naive enough to think our media doesn't push certain narratives. But I've never heard of anything so blatant, as for a newspaper to effectively write an article, and then stick someone else's name on it for credibility.

I know a guy who is an expert in his field, who is often asked for an interview for radio and/or TV.
After a few blatant edits that completely change what he said, he will no longer agree to be interviewed unless he is allowed to record its entirety.

Several interview requests have been cancelled. Weasels.

In other words...fake news.

Pablum for the sheep.

It happens all the time. When I worked as an engineer and a contractor to the Air Force all my studies had the government employee who assigned the project to me listed as the author. Sometimes at the end I would be listed as a contributor to the research. Often times all they knew about the study was what I wrote in the report, but they were listed as the director of the project and author of the report and presented it to their superiors as such.

The definition of "fake news", and probably done more often than we care to think about to push their narrative.

Many years ago I was consulting on some pilot efforts for exchanging safety/regulatory info between industry and government electronically. One well known, very large petroleum company graciously agreed to help and be the guinea pig in a couple of areas. I gave an interview to a "reporter" at a trade rag about our project. Rather than a story of "industry/govt working together to improve a process," she decided to slant it toward "big oil company is failing to send data on time and is breaking the law." I guess she needed a story with conflict and a villain in her simple mind.

I was mortified and repeatedly called her to issue a correction before the oil company lawyers saw the article - but she blew me off. Fortunately, very few people actually read this trade rag, apparently, and it just faded away. Very small example, but one I will never forget when I consume the news. There's good reporting and news out there, but it is so often obscured by bias, BS, and personal agenda (or in the OP's example, commercial interest, which we tend to forget is there with big media outlets like the Globe).

A significant number of articles are actually ghost written by plaintiff's attorneys who are trying to drum up public support for whoever they are suing (or are about to sue).

I was a new photographer in a past job. I was there to get the head shot of the person interviewed, or a location shot. It ranged from cops and feel good stories, to business leaders and human interest stories. I was there hearing the interview, and and taking pictures. I would read the article and look to see which photo the editor selected, and often times the editor or reporter themselves edited the quotes to completely change what was said. Even straight news of a train wreck, the final "truth" was twisted to change what I saw first hand. It is a sleazy business.

We all want to see the honest investigative reported uncover the truth and expose the bad guys. That seems to be mostly a Hollywood fantasy. Maybe it still happens, but the one sided reporting is nothing new.

My pet dog that died 30 years ago ghost-wrote an article.
Sriously! ;)

Long ago when training for emergency/incident response, I was taught not to have anything to do with the media. Anything.
The standard response is: Which I probably won't.

if you don't give the media anything, they'll make up something bad but at least your name won't be on it.
If you talk to them they'll change everything you said and make YOU look the fool.

I quit believing the media when 60 Minutes trashed Audi.......

I grew up under a dictatorship that controlled the media. Excuse me if I don’t believe even newsprint.

Kind of late in life to have any respect for the news media, no ? Like others above, have been involved in in a few stories and what is reported or photographed is so far from what I saw or said it's crazy.

As my Dad would say - 'don't let the facts get in the way of a good story '.......