posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece
The estimated death toll is now at 200,000. Maybe that "sensationalized tabloid" article wasn't so far off after all:
My issue is not with the actual number, it could very well be half a million or more
. It is a requirement of responsible journalism to rely on
the facts of the moment rather than assumptions about the future. Given that I work in the editorial dept. of a major newspaper group here in
Australia, I'm all too aware that serious publications cannot jump to conclusions because you'll not only lose your credibility, the journalist
could very well lose their job. The only reason to place such a high death toll in the title of the article is to stand out among others in 'Google
News' searches. While perusing through a title list, 'half a million' stands out and will get more traffic than other publications sticking with
the presently accepted number.
Here's an example of views we get from a few of our photo galleries accompanying news stories - this is a graph from our latest internal report.
It's all about web traffic, views, and getting people to click around while they're on the page. The more people you get visiting, the better your
placement on the Google news search.
Regardless of how right they may be eventually
, at the time of publication they were firmly within the realm of sensationalized
Considering this thread wasn't intended to nit-pick about the source, let me say this - the death toll could be well over half a million and we'll
never know. Countless victims have already been buried without having been officially counted. It was a colossal tragedy and we don't need assumptive
statistics to validate it any more.
[edit on 18/1/10 by Evasius]