Mitch Albom landed in hot water for reporting something that he expected to happen as if it had already happened -- to make a story deadline. (Next week, who knows? Maybe we'll find out Albom hasn't visited heaven to find the five people you meet there.)
With the Albom affair in mind, Mickey Kaus wonders about a more purposeful deception in almost every Sunday paper and magazine:
Aren't the dates on these MSM Sunday sections beginning to look like a form of fraud, or at least deceptive non-disclosure? The printed Times Calendar section I'm holding in my hand claims it's the Sunday, April 24, 2005 edition. But it's really the Wednesday, April 20, 2005 edition. Uncredentialed blogs accurately report the date they were written, down to the minute, no?Advantage: Self-aggrandizing journalistic wannabes! ... P.S.:Why don't the LAT and NYT (and Time, and Newsweek, and The New Republic, etc.**) accurately disclose to their readers the date they were actually finalized (e.g. the date they were printed)? They could easily do it. The reason they don't is because readers prefer to read the latest information, and the publications want their customers to think they are getting information that's more up-to-date than it actually is. In other words, it's not just an unavoidable problem, or trivial lack of disclosure. It's conscious deception for commercial gain!