Posts tagged the Press

Screenshot_10_03_13_12_23_PM-2

Lazy media (again)

0

Media frenzyI’m on my band-wagon again.  Well, one of them.  My ‘sheez the media is crap, especially considering they are (supposed to be) professionals at it.’ band-wagon, to be precise.

Anyway, in the last week I have seen so many cases of either sloppy reporting, or misleading headlines/sub-headings that I decided to post about it.  Two examples here are from today, but the best example I can cite is actually from a week or so ago (more on that later).

 

 

Today’s example 1: Wrong facts

Screenshot_10_03_13_12_22_PMThis one states ‘CEO Mark Ford …“.  The problem here is Mark Ford isn’t the CEO, he’s the chairman.  A very important distinction, especially considering the current criticism for the ex-CEO. OK, a simple error perhaps, but it should have never got past the proof reader.  And if it did, it shows that either the proof reader didn’t do their job, or doesn’t know their content.  Mark Ford is a professional DIRECTOR, he’s not a CE of anything that I know of at the moment.  I know this, why doesn’t the person writing and proofing this?

 

 

 

Screenshot_10_03_13_12_23_PM-2Example 2: Misleading sub-heading designed to trick the reader into clicking (I think we call that Spam if it’s an email).

This sub-heading reads ‘Cantabrians who have made Earthquake Commission claims will be investigated‘.  Now there are 200,000 or so claims in Canterbury (from memory), so that means 200,000 people might be quite interested in this story.  Except one important word has been missed out.

When one clicks on the headline, the full story reads quite differently it starts ‘Cantabrians who have made false claims…‘.  There is the key word FALSE.  So what the actually story is saying is that false claims will be investigated, not ALL claims.  That word should have never been left out of the sub-heading.

The story has it in the first line (as shown below), why not the sub-heading?  Because sensationalist headlines are in, that’s why!

 

Screenshot_10_03_13_12_24_PM

 

Screenshot_10_03_13_5_16_PMBut the best (or is that worst?) example was a few weeks ago when the NZ Herald lead on their web site with the headline “Gay marriage bill approval“.  The article also initially stated “The Select committee approved gay marriage…”, when BOTH statements are totally incorrect.  The select committee RECOMMENDED that the bill be approved.   HUGE difference.  It’s politics 101, how our parliamentary systems works.  Once again, why doesn’t a journalist know this?  Why wasn’t this very basic, yet fundamental error picked up?  And just to be clear, this approval means the bill (ie not yet law) goes back to the house and parliament votes on it again (called the 2nd reading), and only once it is passed and approved the THIRD time by parliament is it law.  THEN and ONLY THEN is it approved by anyone!  A full summary of this process is here.

Over the course of several hours I noticed the headline and story edited several times, but the most fundamental error (the ‘approval’ vs recommended) error wasn’t picked up until the end of the day, and even then the headline was still factually misleading (it still said ‘approval’).

 

Black and White Version: Headlines are important.   Facts are important.  Media screw up both too often.

 

 

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon


Lazy crappy media

0

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon


naked-drunk-woman

Drunk women are targets? – WELL DUH!

0

Today the Christchurch Press lead story online was Drunk young women ‘sexual attack targets’

I have criticised the media (especially newspapers ) for misleading headlines a fair bit in the past, but this time I am gonna take the contrary view and say the headline is so obvious there is no story.

The 1st line of the article says it all:

Young women found grossly drunk and alone on Christchurch streets are “easy prey for sexual predators”, say police.

Ummm, yep.   But how is this NEWS?    That’s always been the case.

Although as is typical with anything about personal responsibility, the media still manage to screw the story up with quotes like this:

He did not blame those who abandoned the women as much as the alcohol industry, which marketed liquor to women and young people.

It’s good to see the person quoted didn’t blame the friends.  But blaming the alcohol industry is rather simplistic.  He missed the most important person in the whole situation: The Drinker.

Personal responsibility, together with good friends that say stop is the key to addressing this.

Black and White Version: Media love reporting obvious facts and then try to make it news with a new spin.   Drunk people are drunk coz they drink to much, and they shouldn’t – that’s the story.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon


Go to Top