The facts why bother

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Now you can call this nitpicking, but the mainstream media (and I mean all of them) have lowered their standards to a point where I think they should just become a big focking reality show. Here's a snippet:

(CNN) -- Tomas Young's life nearly ended nine years ago when he was riding in the back of a water truck in Baghdad's Sadr City. Two rounds from a sniper's AK-47 hit him; the first severed his spinal cord and the second shattered his left knee. Modern-day medicine saved him. A critically acclaimed 2007 documentary, "Body of War," made his injuries -- and objections to the Iraq war -- widely known.
Now, he lies again on the verge of death.
This time, he is not in a bed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center but on a futon in his home in Kansas City, Missouri. This time, no one is trying desperately to keep him alive. Young wants to die.

The issue I have with this is CNN's blatant manipulation of the story to further sensationalize it.

Two rounds from a snipers AK-47 hit him; the first severed his spinal cord and shattered his left knee.


Really? When did snipers start using AK-47's to engage targets? Why in the crap didn't they just tell the truth and say two rounds from AK-47 hit him? Well that's really a rhetorical question isn't it? And yes, so was that. Maybe we can get the goofs from Duck Dynasty to read the news, at least they won't get the weaponry wrong.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You will never see the word "rifle" in the Washington Post without the modifier "high-powered" in front of it. Even if they're talking about some little plinker like a .22.

I read a piece in the Post about a kid who took his dad's gun to school. At one point it was identified as a "semi-automatic handgun," and at another point in the story as his father's "service revolver."

My favourite of all is that the Post once, on the front page, described a shooting victim as being "hit by a fuselage of bullets."

Yep, a fuselage. Prolly one a them newfangled high-powered rifles that shoots 747s.

And this is the Washington Post, which likes to fancy itself the country's flagship newspaper.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Anyone who is anti-gun has no problem with this I suppose, but I wonder if they were this loose with the facts about other issues if the same would apply.

 

[captain morgan]

Anyone who is anti-gun has no problem with this I suppose, but I wonder if they were this loose with the facts about other issues if the same would apply.

Like global warming?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Anyone who is anti-gun has no problem with this I suppose, but I wonder if they were this loose with the facts about other issues if the same would apply.

They are. But I don't worry about it. The ignorant informing the ignorant is pretty funny, really. They harm their credibility every time they open their mouths.

 

[karrie]

Anyone who is anti-gun has no problem with this I suppose, but I wonder if they were this loose with the facts about other issues if the same would apply.

With one wrong qualifier word? I think we could probably play that game all day in the news from all over the world. "What did they get wrong". You claim anti-gun people are okay with it, I'd put forward the notion that the only reason it got under your skin so bad is because it's a field you're experienced in.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who get annoyed on a daily basis seeing badly written news reports with poorly chosen words, from their fields of expertise.

 

[Cannuck]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who get annoyed on a daily basis seeing badly written news reports with poorly chosen words, from their fields of expertise.

I see lots of mistakes in the news when it deals with issues I have expertise in. I understand that the reporters don't have unlimited knowledge. They do the best they can with the knowledge base they have. I also understand that they are trying to sell a product. That affects how they write.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

With one wrong qualifier word? I think we could probably play that game all day in the news from all over the world. "What did they get wrong". You claim anti-gun people are okay with it, I'd put forward the notion that the only reason it got under your skin so bad is because it's a field you're experienced in.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who get annoyed on a daily basis seeing badly written news reports with poorly chosen words, from their fields of expertise.

I'm not a gun owner. I even support gun registration. I was equally pissed off when CNN reported the 911 terrorists came into Maine from Canada and never bothered to recant. Oh well just a non qualifier: Canada? New Jersey? What's the difference? Canada sounds more like we are a nation of Terrorist Huggers. Guess getting the facts straight is more important to some than others. That attitude is why the standard of news media continues to erode.

 

[karrie]

I'm not a gun owner. I even support gun registration. I was equally pissed off when CNN reported the 911 terrorists came into Maine from Canada and never bothered to recant. Oh well just a non qualifier: Canada? New Jersey? What's the difference? Canada sounds more like we are a nation of Terrorist Huggers. Guess getting the facts straight is more important to some than others. That attitude is why the standard of news media continues to erode.

I never said you were pro-gun, anti-gun, a gun owner, or that you slept with one at night... I simply said that it's a topic you have experience with.

One of the big changes I've seen in the media as of recent is its ability due to online format, to make realtime changes with notes of what errors they contained. I don't think people shrug it off. People do expect more. But, when it's a field outside of their expertise, it's less irksome.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I never said you were pro-gun, anti-gun, a gun owner, or that you slept with one at night... I simply said that it's a topic you have experience with.

One of the big changes I've seen in the media as of recent is its ability due to online format, to make realtime changes with notes of what errors they contained. I don't think people shrug it off. People do expect more. But, when it's a field outside of their expertise, it's less irksome.

I do think people shrug it off. You just shrugged it off in your initial post, because it doesn't really matter to you that this poor guy was shot by an AK-47, instead of a sniper toting an AK-47. And it is not simple error on the part of the media, it is sensationalizing the facts with words like sniper. It doesn't just apply to this subject it applies to all news.

 

[karrie]

I do think people shrug it off. You just shrugged it off in your initial post, because it doesn't really matter to you that this poor guy was shot by an AK-47, instead of a sniper toting an AK-47. And it is not simple error on the part of the media, it is sensationalizing the facts with words like sniper. It doesn't just apply to this subject it applies to all news.

Oh, so this is somehow my fault because I'm admitting that, with it being a field outside my knowledge, I wouldn't have noticed or felt confident arguing the usage with the reporter?

Well, did you report the error to the newspaper?

Or did you gripe about it elsewhere and not bother to demand clarification?

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Oh, so this is somehow my fault because I'm admitting that, with it being a field outside my knowledge, I wouldn't have noticed or felt confident arguing the usage with the reporter?

Well, did you report the error to the newspaper?

Or did you gripe about it elsewhere and not bother to demand clarification?

Yes Karrie, it's your fault. That is what makes this thread more sensational. And no, I did not add my comment to the CNN comment thread because it would have been lost in the 1300 comments ignoring the manipulation of facts.

 

[karrie]

Yes Karrie, it's your fault. That is what makes this thread more sensational. And no, I did not add my comment to the CNN comment thread because it would have been lost in the 1300 comments ignoring the manipulation of facts.

But you get my point. See, unless someone who knows better changes it, how are those of us who don't know, supposed to?

So I guess you've got it right... the facts, why bother?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

But you get my point. See, unless someone who knows better changes it, how are those of us who don't know, supposed to?

So I guess you've got it right... the facts, why bother?

I agree with that. Or to quote the Canadian author Robert J. Sawyer, "I don't need you to know I'm right. It's enough that I know I'm right."

By the way, Can-Soldier, what the hell ever happened to the word "wounded?" Seems like since the Afghan war kicked off, the press insists on using the word "injured."

To me, and I suspect to you, one is "injured" by accident and "wounded" by design.

 

[karrie]

I think it's weird how they develop a common language just like advertisements. "Word of the day" type crap.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

But you get my point. See, unless someone who knows better changes it, how are those of us who don't know, supposed to?

So I guess you've got it right... the facts, why bother?

Just by posting this I'm calling them out. Unfortunately, people have an "Oh well" attitude. It is one of the things that is really infuriating about peoples willingness to accept the Status quo.

The media practice of fact checking has also eroded, but above and beyond that network news as well as newspapers are manipulating and sensationalizing stories to make ratings and sales.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think it's weird how they develop a common language just like advertisements. "Word of the day" type crap.

Imprecise use of language blurs meaning. As in the use of "sniper" in Can Soldier's example. A "sniper" is a long-range marksman, what used to be called a "sharpshooter." I agree with Can Soldier that using "sniper" to mean anybody firing from cover distorts the meaning of the term. Just as I think saying someone was "injured" by enemy fire distorts the term.

But it's part of the evolution of language. When Thomas Jefferson was shown the plans for the White House, he called them "awful and artificial." He was complimenting them.

 

[karrie]

Just by posting this I'm calling them out. Unfortunately, people have an "Oh well" attitude. It is one of the things that is really infuriating about peoples willingness to accept the Status quo.

The media practice of fact checking has also eroded, but above and beyond that network news as well as newspapers are manipulating and sensationalizing stories to make ratings and sales.

Yeah. But, the alternative is spending your time grumpy over things that are outside of your control.

I come here because I don't want to just ingest the news the way it's fed to me. For people who care, and who see the flaws, they do the same, or similar things.

But, for the average person, it's outside the realm of concern because they have more pressing things going on in their lives.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Yeah. But, the alternative is spending your time grumpy over things that are outside of your control.

I come here because I don't want to just ingest the news the way it's fed to me. For people who care, and who see the flaws, they do the same, or similar things.

But, for the average person, it's outside the realm of concern because they have more pressing things going on in their lives.

Like watching Storage Wars or Repo 911 which, by the way, are both fake.

 

[Zipperfish]

The few times I've been in the paper in my life, they always get my name wrong, despite the fact that I've made a point of telling them, and it's not realy that difficult. I thought to mysel, "If they can't even get my name right, after I spelled it out for them, how much can I really trust here...?"

But, I agree with karrie. It's not like I expect all that much fidelity from the news to start with. Just a kind of general impression of what's going on out there. Once you start to stare at teh screen too much, though, you realize that the news is a very low-resolution image of what's happening.

You can obsess about it and get furious over things over which you have no control. Or you can let it ride by and focus on the things close to you in life that you can influence.