So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[EngProf]

I heard a news report on a hot air balloon crash stating that there was a "significant loss of life"; is there such a thing as an insignificant loss of life?

Reminds me of George Carlin's news-reporter bit:
"There were three more senseless killings in the city last night. However, there were two other perfectly reasonable ones."

 

[EngProf]

What scares me are the inaccuracies I regularly find in news articles in my area of expertise. It makes me think, if they are making this many outright mistakes, along with a lot of "not really right" and "gives it the wrong angle" errors in a field I know, how many errors, etc. are there in articles on things I don't know about?

As we've said before, you have to check and cross check the news and try, as best you can, to verify things and to be skeptical of things you haven't. It's all very exhausting. Headline errors are just where the problems start.

Someone once said, "If you ever read a news report about an event that you were directly involved in, you'll never believe another news report again."

 

[Stearmen]

What worries me even more is that increasingly what you get, especially in small market papers, are thinly-rewritten press releases. The usual work flow is that some source in a story hands out a release, the reporter calls for "further comment" and is handed over to a Public Relations Specialist who gives them a slightly rearranged comment that says nothing beyond what was in the original release. The reporter then calls another source with a different point of view, which gives a similarly pre-digested comment, and that's the story that gets published. On to the next one. The laziest possible assumption for a reporter is always that (1) There are "two valid points of view" on every story and (2) spokespeople for both sides can be trusted to give out honest information on every story.

Give me a reporter any day who makes a few mistakes here and there over one who doesn't even try to probe beyond what's handed out by the flacks.

That's not new! That is after all how we got D.B. Cooper, instead of Dan Cooper!

 

[Trenchfriend]

Aaah, I forgot a good one!:

One of the best typical things from the boys of marketing is the successful "Cashmink"-fibre from scarf-productioner FRAAS. Equally, what their euphemism tells you, everybody is able to see and feel, that it's just very soft and fluffy polyacrylic, but nothing special.

So, many storebrand and no-name-scarves of the same fluffy kind, you can find everywhere, are naturally just honestly marked as "polyacrylic".

 

[Bruce Wayne]

People who can't go 5 minutes without an electronic device & so carry a phone or tablet into the bathroom. Maybe I could understand if you wr re e a doctor and couldn't be out of contact but a regular everyday joe? Come on.

 

[MisterCairo]

I heard a news report on a hot air balloon crash stating that there was a "significant loss of life"; is there such a thing as an insignificant loss of life?

I have no doubt they'd argue it is about "numbers", i.e., "lots of people" died, vice "a few" or "just one". All of which makes such statements accounting-based or statistical at the end of the day. Question: at what level of fatalities does it become "significant"? More than three?

No offence to anyone here in the field, but I don't hold journalists in high regard.

And I'm a lawyer...

 

[Trenchfriend]

People who can't go 5 minutes without an electronic device & so carry a phone or tablet into the bathroom. Maybe I could understand if you wr re e a doctor and couldn't be out of contact but a regular everyday joe? Come on.

Todays kids would need two "auxiliary-batteries", before entering the supermarket.

Former GDR:

 

[Fading Fast]

Todays kids would need two "auxiliary-batteries", before entering the supermarket.

Former GDR:

No offense (sincerely, all meant in good fun), but the former GDR wouldn't have had personal electronic devices like cell phones or tablets until 2235 at the earliest...and their's wouldn't have worked, even then, anyway.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I have no doubt they'd argue it is about "numbers", i.e., "lots of people" died, vice "a few" or "just one". All of which makes such statements accounting-based or statistical at the end of the day. Question: at what level of fatalities does it become "significant"? More than three?

No offence to anyone here in the field, but I don't hold journalists in high regard.

And I'm a lawyer...

It's entirely about numbers. If one person dies in a single engine plane crash, it's not a huge story, probably just a local story. If 300 die in 747 crash, it's all over the international news. That may be a sad commentary on our society, but that's not the reporters' fault really.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Journalism is a business, not a service. Or so I was told when I worked in it.

 

[MisterCairo]

It's entirely about numbers. If one person dies in a single engine plane crash, it's not a huge story, probably just a local story. If 300 die in 747 crash, it's all over the international news. That may be a sad commentary on our society, but that's not the reporters' fault really.

Joseph Stalin, I believe: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

There are any number of ways of looking at it. My dislike for journos is based on far more than their use of hyperbole.

 

[MisterCairo]

Journalism is a business, not a service. Or so I was told when I worked in it.

You won't find many journalists talking like that today. They're above soldiers when it comes to protecting democracy, brave members of a true profession to a one.

Sorry, can't stand 'em.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You won't find many journalists talking like that today. They're above soldiers when it comes to protecting democracy, brave members of a true profession to a one.

Sorry, can't stand 'em.

I occasionally get/have to work with them. They feel the same about lawyers. I'm just glad everyone loves geologists.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The biggest thing I remember from my reporter days was the palpable contempt that dripped from cops and lawyers in the direction of journalists, the sort of attitude one might display upon discovering a large wad of dog turd adhered to a well-shined shoe. Small wonder that the feeling was mutual.

Be that as it may, the "It's a business, not a service" attitude is one of the main reasons I got out of it. The other reason was the coolie wages.

 

[Trenchfriend]

In Germany, the old masses don't like journalism, but mostly thinking of the enemy-image of the semi-criminal photo-journalist. It's the old mentality of "Dark-Germany".

Luckily, I'm a private photo-journalist, just on hobby. No one is allowed to hit me or trip me up or throw me in the mud-puddle. And please, spare my Pentax ME Super.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Hugo Boss launched a nice looking herringbone tweed-basecap.

And what did I see?? 100% polyester! Are you kidding me??

 

[Trenchfriend]

Boys from marketing:

"The biggest storage-clearing sale of all times! - top brands - 70% discount!!"



Who need sports-clothing?

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Journalism is a business, not a service. Or so I was told when I worked in it.

Well, it's a bit of both, an advertising business & a service to certain political parties................the rest is just news.

 

[Trenchfriend]

And in the end, you can say:

"It was just business..."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, it's a bit of both, an advertising business & a service to certain political parties................the rest is just news.

My last stop in the "profession" was a station owned by the state chairman of a certain political party and failed candidate for Congress. No pressure to slant there, no sirreee.