Do some...

  spuds 13:19 26 Sep 06
Locked

newspaper's,television reports and perhaps journalist's over exaggerate!.

Over the past few month's, I have seen an increase of 'alarmist' news headings.Is this to get the story across to the public, or is it a possible increased sales or viewing ploy, which seems doomed to failure?.

  Kate B 13:29 26 Sep 06

No. To be honest I get sick of my profession being routinely dismissed. Even tabloids - in fact tabloids even more so than broadsheets - take a lot of care to get their facts as right as possible.

What "alarmist" headlines were you thinking of?

  Woolwell 13:31 26 Sep 06

I don't think that this is something that has happened just over the past few months. Over the years I have seen stories printed and because I knew the subject well I felt able to say that the report was untrue or misleading or exaggerated or had some facts wrong.

I think that some papers are worse than others. I get suspicious if I see the words "exclusive".

It also seems that good news rarely gets printed.

  Diemmess 13:34 26 Sep 06

If it isn't sales at the back of exaggeration, it is political spin and plain business need to attract attention.

Sometimes it is just sloppiness as one day last week.
The presenter on an early morning show BBC Radio Gloucestershire, expanding overnight hospital news of Richard Hammond interpreted "a significant brain injury"..... as.... "a serious brain injury."

"Significant" - is possibly ambiguous but I think means exactly what it says, without relating to Hammonds condition which at the time was known to be very poorly

  robgf 13:39 26 Sep 06

Journalist's naturally exaggerate stories, to make them seem more exciting, or outrageous, so they catch our attention.
If all the stories stuck precisely to the facts, they would be rather dull.
We all do a bit of embellishment, when relating a story, of course it is less likely to stir up trouble, when we do it and a newspaper may have a political agenda.

Of the two local newspaper stories, that I have had personal knowledge of, one was reported reasonably accurately, it was about 80% correct. The other was virtually a work of fiction, about 20% correct.

I suppose it depends on the reporter and what type of media the report is created for.

  spuds 13:50 26 Sep 06

"What 'alarmist' headlines were you thinking of?"

Local rag- 'Doorman Gunned Down'. When the truth of the story came out, it appeared that the doorman was shot in the leg with a ball bearing air pistol. Would add, that this headline brought shock and terror to a reasonably quiet neighbourhood. People were scared to venture out for day's, whilst the 'gunman' was on the loose.

National rag's- 'Killer Beasts', 'Monster Dogs','Savage Animals' etc, after very tragic incident's causing injury or death by dog's, or possible caged animal's.

National rag- 'Exclusive' on some celebrities Sex, Booze and Drug addictions.

  Kate B 13:59 26 Sep 06

When situations are fast-moving, things get confused. I can promise you that no journalist would deliberately lie about any fact: it's not worth it, he or she would be in deep trouble and would probably lose his or her job. Furthermore, there's a cut-off point at which you have to go with what information you've got. I suspect in the case of the shooting, nobody knew that it was an air pistol involved until after the page had gone to press, for example.

Furthermore, we have to rely on the information we're given. If someone tells us something that's incorrect and we find nothing to tell us otherwise, sorry, journalists are not clairvoyants nor in possession of crystal balls.

  Sethhaniel 14:17 26 Sep 06

and one of todays stories "Bloomberg conveniently changed their story" when challenged -

had enough dealing with the press throughout the years to be very wary of 'what' and 'what they do not' print - even to the point of editing a magazine to challenge the local press and its inaccuracies (available on the web)

just have to look at the selection of supposedly the same story through a cross section of each days papers to see the differences proffered as facts :0

  Forum Editor 17:57 26 Sep 06

I was the subject of a feature article in a national daily paper. I'm not going into details, but the article dealt with a fairly controversial subject on which I had been known to voice a fairly strong opinion at an industry reception. It was picked up by this paper, and a reporter and photographer came to my home to interview me.

When I saw the printed feature I was quite horrified to see that things I said had been taken completely out of context - and some things I had no recollection of saying had magically appeared. The piece was a travesty, and I resolved never to speak to the press again unless there was an agreement that I saw the text before publication.

Most journalists act with integrity, but not all of them do. We have a family friend who is a well-known film and TV actor - he's been a famous face for a number of years. Some of the things he tells me about the way some journalists behave make my blood run cold, but again, he's talking about a minority.

Anyone who believes that all journalists tell the truth all the time is living in cloud cuckoo land.

  josie mayhem 18:14 26 Sep 06

Nope. they've been doing it for years...

In the 80's The media turned a fight in the town centre into a major riot... hundreds scraping they said... Nope about 10-15 people fighting in the high street, even the spectators didn't add up to that figure, I guess that there was about 150 of us watching....

  wolfie3000 18:14 26 Sep 06

What about the sunday sport surely all there news is true like the ww2 bomber on the moon?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

New Corel ParticleShop plugin now available: 11 new brushes & 6 new brush packs

Apple AirPods review: Apple's beautiful new Bluetooth headphones bring true intelligence to…