Bad journalism another example

I read a story yesterday about a pilot losing his sight and been guided into land by a pilot in another aircraft.

Here are some Google links relating to the story.

Google News

Now it is obvious that most of the publications just copy the original syndicated story blindly, then added their own drama.

Comparing the articles

1. Was the aircraft is a 2 seat light aircraft or a 4 seat jet?
2. Was he flying at 15,000, 14,000 or 1,500 feet?
3. Did the RAF respond with a jet or a Tucano aircraft which is not a jet?
4. Was the RAF aircraft 150 feet or 500 feet away from the other aircraft?

If the press can't manage to report a simple story like this involving only a few people what hope do we have of them reporting anything?

I think when they report "news story's" Story is the significant word.

Originally posted by lightchild
I read a story yesterday about a pilot losing his sight and been guided into land by a pilot in another aircraft.
[...] Now it is obvious that most of the publications just copy the original syndicated story blindly, then added their own drama.
[...] If the press can't manage to report a simple story like this involving only a few people what hope do we have of them reporting anything?
I think when they report "news story's" Story is the significant word.

Sometimes, tight deadlines & bad editing can put 'clarity of facts' or even 'reliability of sources' at the backseat of the news making process..Not to mention some nasty editorial/corporate 'intervention' into a journalist's work.

So, no, I don't think we should put too much 'faith' and always remain skeptical enough to do our own search and re-checkings when it comes to news Stories.. S&F for your post for reminding me of the flaws of my own profession

Nevertheless, a News Story item is, to a certain degree, a 'more relaxed' type of news writing/reporting, with a not-too-tight demand for credible facts more than the uniqueness/shocking/intriguing value of the story itself, as far as my own experience can recall. I might be wrong though?

I just hope you won't dismiss the fact that there are quite a lot of good, credible & non-compromised investigative journalism out there, that truly merits attention

Thank you for your reply.

I have wanted to post this for some time, but I have been waiting for the right story, I chose this story because.

1. Everyone is still alive to tell it
2. No one has any motive to lie or hide anything
3. It wasn't bad news or depressing
4. The story revolved around the history of what happened not opinions
5. It was recent

I can understand some of the early reports either lacking some facts or containing errors, the oldest story is now 23 hours old and even now the new reports differ.

Nevertheless, a News Story item is, to a certain degree, a 'more relaxed' type of news writing/reporting, with a not-too-tight demand for credible facts more than the uniqueness/shocking/intriguing value of the story itself

The trouble is who do you believe?
Obviously none of the Main Stream Media (msm).
But then again most people believe anything they read in a newspaper or see on television. I bet most people think journalists have a legal obligation to tell the truth.

So as an insider I am curious, is this
1. A great conspiracy?
2. Laziness of the staff?
3. To sell more copies?

We see the same type reporting on firearms incidents. The talking head screams 'The man used a fully automatic machinegun' then they show the actual weapon and its a six shot revolver or a semi-auto pistol. Talking heads are woefully ignorant about the actual world they report in. They are, for the most part, simply pretty, stupid, faces hired for show. Print reporters are even worse. On any point they might want to make its always slanted one way or another and can't get any facts striaght in the rush to be 'First Reported by"!!

Zindo

reply to post by lightchild

The trouble is who do you believe?
Obviously none of the Main Stream Media (msm).
But then again most people believe anything they read in a newspaper or see on television. I bet most people think journalists have a legal obligation to tell the truth.
So as an insider I am curious, is this
1. A great conspiracy?
2. Laziness of the staff?
3. To sell more copies?

Hello lightchild..
Didn't notice your reply till now. Hope I'm not too late & you've lost interest to whatever reply I might have by now? (It's a bit hard to stay on line with what little 'free time' I have & about 8 hours time difference here, in the southern hemispheres...)

I like the point you made about what people expect from a journalist in general. It is true and every professional journalist knows it too
It is the ethical as well as professional code of the profession...Nonetheless, it is hard sometime to live up to it, especially when you are faced with cover ups from the PTB, threats/intimidation from those who don't like your report, Chief Editors/CEO breathing down your neck due to some 'sensitive' news, the risk of loosing your job...etc. God knows, I had my share of all those 'pretty' little things..

Having said that, I think the 3 points you've stated (great conspiracy/laziness/selling more copies) are quite possible. The great conspiracy part, IMO, is really not that common in journalistic workings as some of us would like to believe. I personally think that the real conspiracy is about the worldwide mega-mergers of mainstream news companies (such as the Time-Warner merger). There is just too much political & business interest involved in such mergers that there is just no way of guaranteeing the balance of bias & objective news making.

I believe that readers, like yourself, should criticize the media out loud (like the media reporting that airplane incident, for example) to make sure they remember their ethical obligation to the public

[edit on 9-11-2008 by KembaraLangit]

It's never too late to reply!

I can understand that if you were going to criticise a corporation that buy lots of advertising then this could cause problems.

If I see bad spelling and grammar then I do complain and I have received apologies from editors.
What hope do we have if professional writers can't get it right?

Where do see the future of journalism with the growth of the Internet, how long before people stop buying newspapers and maagzines?

Originally posted by lightchild
It's never too late to reply!
I can understand that if you were going to criticise a corporation that buy lots of advertising then this could cause problems.
If I see bad spelling and grammar then I do complain and I have received apologies from editors.
What hope do we have if professional writers can't get it right?
Where do see the future of journalism with the growth of the Internet, how long before people stop buying newspapers and maagzines?

I think professional writers has never been able to get it right, IF you are referring to getting all the data in a perfect manner. But, in connection to the news item you posted in the first place, I think the fact that the different news stories all present unclear/confusing data is more likely due to lack of knowledge/investigative effort than lack of know-how or talent..We will always, IMO, have good journalist around to cross check any unclear news with

As for the future of journalism, I really can't say mate? All I know is that almost all printed media (magazines/newspaper) have online version (website), but people do still buy newspaper/magazines to read..Would you prefer 'paperless' media yourself? What if there's a power cut?

I stopped buying newspapers and magazines when I had broadband installed in 2000. There is plenty to read online, but how long will it continue, especially with portable electronic devices.
I am not sure where the revenue will come from but I don't think the publishers do either.

it's just pure laziness most of the time, it takes very little effort to check the facts on a story, i do it all the time when i read something interesting online. in saying that, it often becomes a game of hunt the original source as you click back through 15 source links, each one less embellished than the last.

i find you're often as well off going straight to the wires instead, they tend to be inaccurate at times but at least the inaccuracies aren't compounded by the embellishments of various frustrated writers playing journalist for their crust.

From the Times newspaper

Church of England bans swinging, driniking vicar from practising

Church of England bans swinging, driniking vicar from practising

Even the headline is spelt incorrectly.

Originally posted by pieman
it's just pure laziness most of the time, it takes very little effort to check the facts on a story, i do it all the time when i read something interesting online. in saying that, it often becomes a game of hunt the original source as you click back through 15 source links, each one less embellished than the last.
i find you're often as well off going straight to the wires instead, they tend to be inaccurate at times but at least the inaccuracies aren't compounded by the embellishments of various frustrated writers playing journalist for their crust.

This is funny...I've just spent about a full hour talking to a 'new' reporter put in on-the-job-training with me about the importance of getting the FACTS straight rather than concentrating on 'stylish embellishment'

Guess what? She said the Chief Editor put in the extra bit of 'embellishment'. So, I decide it's best if we both talk to our mutual boss & he pointed out to us that it's all about making the news item that much more interesting to read, with the right viewpoint/angle, and that I can always quit & write text-books if I want to be so god-damn insistant on writing 'dry' news...Guess the kind of journalism I thought ought to be just doesn't SELL anymore?

reply to post by lightchild


Now that is just plain and simple BAD journalism, IMO..Wonder if the Editors even put enough time to check that story's content? Well, maybe it's all about the deadline?

BTW, I wonder what you guys/girls might think about this :
en.wikipedia.org...

Gonzo journalism
Main article: Gonzo journalism
Gonzo journalism is a type of journalism popularized by the American writer Hunter S. Thompson, author of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved, among other stories and books. Gonzo journalism is characterized by its punchy style, rough language, and ostensible disregard for conventional journalistic writing forms and customs. More importantly, the traditional objectivity of the journalist is given up through immersion into the story itself, as in New Journalism, and the reportage is taken from a first-hand, participatory perspective, sometimes using an author surrogate such as Thompson's Raoul Duke. Gonzo journalism attempts to present a multi-disciplinary perspective on a particular story, drawing from popular culture, sports, political, philosophical and literary sources. Gonzo journalism has been styled eclectic or untraditional. It remains a feature of popular magazines such as Rolling Stone magazine. It has a good deal in common with new journalism and on-line journalism.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by KembaraLangit]...typos

[edit on 12-11-2008 by KembaraLangit]

I can understand a little if this was the hottest story going.
But it hardly the most important news story in the world and how long does it take to proof read a story?

I could also understand if the newspaper was a small local paper, but this is the Times, on their website they claim

News Site of the Year | The 2008 Newspaper Awards

There does seem to be more sensationalism in the news and it seems to be spreading from the tabloids.

This morning I saw this story.


Birdstrike pilot hero

The Sun newspaper managed three sentences; it doesn't mention why the pilot was a hero.


edit for grammar




[edit on 12/11/2008 by lightchild]

Originally posted by KembaraLangit
he pointed out to us that it's all about making the news item that much more interesting to read, with the right viewpoint/angle, and that I can always quit & write text-books if I want to be so god-damn insistant on writing 'dry' news...Guess the kind of journalism I thought ought to be just doesn't SELL anymore?

interesting, i notice you inserted the angle comment, are you suggesting the embellishment is cynically/systematically being used to present the story in a manner that supports a particular agenda the editor supports?

i disagree with your boss, strongly. Newspapers are believed to be more stringently edited for accuracy than the other forms of media, this is the main reason they still sell, if they lose this reliability they will lose sales, i've no doubt.

maybe ATS's next media venture should be a decent and factually accurate investigative journal. there's a gap in the market developing.

[edit on 12/11/08 by pieman]

I saw this article in the Telegraph

The regional newspaper group behind The Scotsman and the Yorkshire Post said advertising revenues had fallen 15.5pc in the first 44 weeks of the year, dragged down by declining property, employment and motoring advertising.

Regional newspaper publisher sees ad revenue slump continue

I know newspapers are a business and it is important to make a profit.
But when was the last time you met a rich journalist,?
I thought newspapers were providing a public and community service as well as making money.

A greater threat to the regional newspapers will be if Disney provide small ads in their stories.

Perhaps the general sheeple are more interested in stories and entertainment than they are facts?

A similar incident in a Uk Newspaper occured when an MP was retiring and the newspaper used wikpedia as its source about him. Someone had altered this mans profile on wiki as anyone can and claimed he wrote a 90s pop song by s club 7 of course which he had not done.The paper included this in their stroy of him.

Goes to show how lazy reporters are in general. What makes me more angry is when people regurgitate the stories they have read as fact and their own opinion, just from having read this nonesense that is a newspaper.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Horus12]

What makes me more angry is when people regurgitate the stories they have read as fact and their own opinion, just from having read this nonesense that is a newspaper

or forums.

It is even worse when the don't even know what they are talking about, they then resort to repeating the same things, louder and louder.
Politicians seem to do it all the time.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by KembaraLangit
he pointed out to us that it's all about making the news item that much more interesting to read, with the right viewpoint/angle, and that I can always quit & write text-books if I want to be so god-damn insistant on writing 'dry' news...Guess the kind of journalism I thought ought to be just doesn't SELL anymore?

interesting, i notice you inserted the angle comment, are you suggesting the embellishment is cynically/systematically being used to present the story in a manner that supports a particular agenda the editor supports?
i disagree with your boss, strongly. Newspapers are believed to be more stringently edited for accuracy than the other forms of media, this is the main reason they still sell, if they lose this reliability they will lose sales, i've no doubt.
maybe ATS's next media venture should be a decent and factually accurate investigative journal. there's a gap in the market developing.
[edit on 12/11/08 by pieman]

Yup. I think it is to fit in his or the 'bigger boss' own agenda.The agenda is simply to sell more than the competitors...Or, it's about the new intern, who is a fairly good looking girl....??? Or, trying not to lose face in front of the new reporter??? Whatever it was, I've made my point clear that I don't want to babysit that new reporter anymore if my 'way of reporting' is going to be intervened by 'embellishments' again.

I have nothing against creative ways of writing news, just like that 'Gonzo Journalism' style that I excerpted from Wiki, but I do believe a journalist should always stick to facts first & foremost..And yes, it is especially true for a newspapers' credibility.

Your idea for ATS sounds interesting pieman! Count me in!!

reply to post by lightchild

Perhaps the general sheeple are more interested in stories and entertainment than they are facts?

Strange as it may seem, in my country, infotainment (especially on TV), full of gossips about local & foreign celebs, is actually the most viewed news-related item. Many printed & electronic medias here, are also starting to feature more & more space/slots for soft-news items like lifestyle; entertainment; hobbies etc.

Some people that I talked to about this say that they are just tired of all the 'bad' news from the papers/TV/radio..Ignorance is bliss, eh? If this keeps up, guess I'll be out of job soon