To me the fact that Slate has a story on this is more revealing than the story itself. From the 1st - 2nd century: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ["Who will guard the guards themselves?"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F
One reason stories of the original "War of the Worlds" broadcast live on is that as whole, we like them. History is chock full of similar stories & examples, but this one has legs as they say, making it to history's rough equivalent of the best seller lists. NPR [National Public Radio], National Geographic, and the History Channel are among sites with stories similar to the one on Slate. It seems agreed among them that the number of listeners fooled was somewhere around a million, which is a lot of people, even if it's a small percentage of the total listeners across the US. There are a lot of cities, many with well known names, that have a population of a million or less. A million people is enough to say factually that something happened, and since we like it already, the story lives on.
So, does the story need debunked? On Slate? I'd expect it from the 3 sites I mentioned -- that's their assumed nature -- but it's a topic of very limited current importance, maybe generous in giving it any import at all, that's been researched & published, done & over, over & done. If you Google "Who's watching the watchers?" [w/w/out quotes], a much more common phrasing than who's guarding the guards, you get Many more references to Star Trek. Seems that clearly the public likes its stories, not caring how real they are. So why bother?
It seems that the "War of the Worlds" broadcast & the immediate news coverage have often been written about with a sense of indignation, sometimes [IMHO ironically] to point out the way people can be manipulated. I think you also see a psychological &/or sociological phenomena where each generation faults those younger, & often those older too. We often feel that we know more than our parents, & especially their parents, if for no other reason than the vast amount of knowledge the world has added to its databanks since they were young.
Up until maybe the 60s journalism students were taught that reporting the news meant reporting the facts, consciously trying to avoid bias or interpretation. That wasn't of course what happened in the real world, but that was the goal, even if it was sometimes more purely philosophical. Then, I think sometime in the early half of the 70s, journalism had an epiphany, deciding that if you couldn't ever really be unbiased [because of perceptions being based on experience], why bother making the attempt. Prior generations of journalists were perhaps naive, if not deluded. So for journalists generational bias might be even more pronounced.
At any rate, like everyone else, those in the media tend to see the actions of others based on the same manipulations that they most often use themselves, the same way that black hat hackers are often good at cyber security, &/or crooks can be good as security consultants & so on. Recognizing & pointing out gross manipulation carried out by a prior generation of journalists, revealed by a generation who've only striven to perfect the art, seems to me a bit ironic. ;)
That's not to say anything for or against Slate -- it's intended to say only that people are people. Whether you're talking about the original "War of the Worlds" broadcast, or the stories on it over the years, or this incident where some guy indulged in some trolling, or the media in general, it's all about exploiting traits that are all too human. We're designed to all be *hard wired* the same way, so many of the same basic tricks, or manipulation if you'd rather, can work around the globe, & have worked throughout recorded history. Those 1st story tellers, committing stories to memory long before they were written down, Orson Welles, bloggers, or the writers at Slate -- they're all the same. We're all the same.
Which is why your first reaction to any "crisis" broadcast by any media shouldn't be "that's terrible!" but "what if it's true".
Actually that same critical thinking should be applied to everything. Is this guy/gal being honest to start with, & as importantly is what they honestly believe accurate? Are they just parroting something they've been told, or did they research, & if they did any research, was it sound? Are they even competent to give more than a personal opinion? Lastly, and maybe most important of all, what's their motivation(s)? What do they get out of telling me, or the world, what they're selling us?
TO me, thinking critically when it comes to the Slate article, means starting with what I know of Slate. They have a liberal blend & are popular, so that means they have a liberal readership, & that's whom they write to. People of liberal bend have their common agendas [same as conservatives & libertarians]. Generally speaking liberals are also prone to feeling good personally about furthering altruistic, some go so far as to label them utopian goals. Now. that's pure analysis without any judgement attached, & I simply insert what I feel are the appropriate filters, after doing at least a cursory fact check.
I didn't write that 1st part as well [nor nearly as quickly] as I would have hoped, but condensed to its essence, my quick, post-filter assessment was/is that it's a harmless piece perhaps as filler & speaks to what the author feels needs said, rather than being designed to fill some other need. Because of the filtering & fact checking the bias of a stronger tone was detected, & except for noting the [deliciously amusing] irony, ignored. That's supposed to be illustrative -- NOT even hinting I'm right & everyone else is wrong. I'm wrong more than plenty of times, but do my best to adjust, or trash previous views, as I get more evidence or find a flaw in logic etc. The important thing is there is no end point, no done, but a constant process without resistance to changes in direction. That's because we can't possibly ever get all the data, especially all at once, & anything more than a moment in snapshot pretense. :)
