Discussion:
heh, silly bbc
(too old to reply)
cowboy carl
2004-10-02 10:03:28 UTC
Permalink
they have a headline "PM Triggers Successor Speculation"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3706964.stm)

which kinda implies there was no speculation before.

sometimes, just sometimes, i really hate the media.

cc
Robert de Vincy
2004-10-02 10:13:23 UTC
Permalink
cowboy carl did write:

[snips]
Post by cowboy carl
sometimes, just sometimes, i really hate the media.
Only sometimes?!?

My experience of "the media" is that they will distort even the smallest
thing to make a story worthy of being put in a newspaper. Recently, a local
newspaper did a story on the charity I work for. Reading the final copy
in the office a few weeks ago, if I hadn't been told it was about us I
would not have guessed it was. Everything the Chairman said was printed
but taken out of context or exaggerated until it was, to all effects, false.

If they do this with a story I know the background to, what about all the
other stories they print? Since I (we) don't know the facts in those cases,
how can we know what's true and what's exaggerated for effect?
--
BdeV
cowboy carl
2004-10-02 10:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert de Vincy
[snips]
Post by cowboy carl
sometimes, just sometimes, i really hate the media.
Only sometimes?!?
My experience of "the media" is that they will distort even the smallest
thing to make a story worthy of being put in a newspaper. Recently, a local
newspaper did a story on the charity I work for. Reading the final copy
in the office a few weeks ago, if I hadn't been told it was about us I
would not have guessed it was. Everything the Chairman said was printed
but taken out of context or exaggerated until it was, to all effects, false.
If they do this with a story I know the background to, what about all the
other stories they print? Since I (we) don't know the facts in those cases,
how can we know what's true and what's exaggerated for effect?
Well, having the same story relayed by a dozen or so news sources helps, cos
the more sources that tell the story, the less likely it is they are working
together to distort things (hence why http://news.google.com rules).

But with minor news outlets, well, take what they say with a pound of salt.

In fact, take everything everyone says with a pound of salt, unless you saw
it for yourself.

But even then, it might have been an optical illusion, so only trust things
you have actually *done* yourself.

However, memory can be deceiving, so only trust things which are actually
happening right *now*.

For instance, did I write this message just now? Or was the universe just
created two seconds ago along with this message and my memory of writing it?

cc

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...