That is just wrong.
Stage collapse in Toronto
- Thread starterJohnD
- Start date
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
The converse of Mike's observation, "just because an incident *does* show up on CB doesn't mean it has general interest or applicability across the industry" is also true.
This particular confimation bias is getting more and more common, and most people aren't positioned to properly identify it as the result of getting the raw, instead of something cooked through a news director somewhere -- it used to be that hearing something on the national news meant it was Actually Important...
BillConnerFASTC
Well-Known Member
So, it's fake news?
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
C'mon, Bill, you know better than that.
The *importance to the general public* of a piece of news is something that's traditionally been the province of local print editors and news directors; if something made the national news, it's because one of those gatekeepers ran it, and then either a bunch of other local guys decided to take it off the wire and run it too.
Or a national news editor, with the larger weight of his job on his shoulders, did so.
That intermediation has been removed now, making it difficult for those not schooled in the art to have a good feeling for what's *actually* important. People who want the raw but can't handle it, and hence overreact to it give me hives. An example is subscribers to my local news stringer on FB, who commonly go on about "oh, my ghod; the world is so much more violent now" when a) that's factually, numerically provably incorrect -- it's very much the opposite, and b) they think that *because they asked for the raw, and they can't handle it (handling it being defined as "knowing what the existence of specific news stories actually means, strategically).
Fake news, on the other hand, is things which are not only not news, but not *true*; they're made up lies, or stories stretched (usually by the headline) to imply things they don't actually imply.
Which ever definition of Fake News you like, though, it's got nothing whatever to do with what I was talking about.
The *importance to the general public* of a piece of news is something that's traditionally been the province of local print editors and news directors; if something made the national news, it's because one of those gatekeepers ran it, and then either a bunch of other local guys decided to take it off the wire and run it too.
Or a national news editor, with the larger weight of his job on his shoulders, did so.
That intermediation has been removed now, making it difficult for those not schooled in the art to have a good feeling for what's *actually* important. People who want the raw but can't handle it, and hence overreact to it give me hives. An example is subscribers to my local news stringer on FB, who commonly go on about "oh, my ghod; the world is so much more violent now" when a) that's factually, numerically provably incorrect -- it's very much the opposite, and b) they think that *because they asked for the raw, and they can't handle it (handling it being defined as "knowing what the existence of specific news stories actually means, strategically).
Fake news, on the other hand, is things which are not only not news, but not *true*; they're made up lies, or stories stretched (usually by the headline) to imply things they don't actually imply.
Which ever definition of Fake News you like, though, it's got nothing whatever to do with what I was talking about.
BillConnerFASTC
Well-Known Member
Seems like "cooked through a news director" doesn't sound a lot different from
And my comment was just intended as a humorous quip based on current events and the news, which, more seriously, is mostly driven by ratings.
And my comment was just intended as a humorous quip based on current events and the news, which, more seriously, is mostly driven by ratings.
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry you think so. In this case, "cooked" is merely the opposite of "raw", measuring the degree to which a news story is processed through a traditional news organization.
It has nothing to do with the "cooked the books" sort of meaning.
If you're trying to imply that traditional news organizations are... hmmm... the enemy of the people? Then we're done on that topic.
Sorry; it's a topic on which I have *zero* sense of humor.
It has nothing to do with the "cooked the books" sort of meaning.
If you're trying to imply that traditional news organizations are... hmmm... the enemy of the people? Then we're done on that topic.
Sorry; it's a topic on which I have *zero* sense of humor.
[off topic] The traditional news media is extremely important to the survival of our nation. Unless most people get and trust in accurate facts, then we cannot hold politicians accountable and solve problems. Facts are facts, and the traditional news media generally gets it right. Reliance on heavily slanted news sources or citizen journalists (FB, Twitter, Fox, Huffpost, etc.) is dangerous.
The other factor is that newspapers are often the original reporters, along with public radio. That is where the stories come from. Often, TV and web news organizations are simply repeating stories from the original reporters. TV and web journalists seldom come up with anything new on their own, with the possible exception of ambulance chasing. The problem is newspapers are struggling financially and laying off staff. If you want to have strong, reliable journalism, support your local newspaper and public radio station.
Full disclosure: I work for a public radio station that is an NPR affiliate. Having watched our reporters and editors work, I have the highest regard for them.
The other factor is that newspapers are often the original reporters, along with public radio. That is where the stories come from. Often, TV and web news organizations are simply repeating stories from the original reporters. TV and web journalists seldom come up with anything new on their own, with the possible exception of ambulance chasing. The problem is newspapers are struggling financially and laying off staff. If you want to have strong, reliable journalism, support your local newspaper and public radio station.
Full disclosure: I work for a public radio station that is an NPR affiliate. Having watched our reporters and editors work, I have the highest regard for them.
Not often this happens for these kinds of incidents but an official investigation report has surfaced. An interesting, albeit damning read.
As usual, people die not when 1 thing goes wrong but when 10 things go wrong.
As usual, people die not when 1 thing goes wrong but when 10 things go wrong.
More info, grant of standing, inquest to resume...
http://www.digitalityworks.com/Viewers/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueID=204&PageNo=11
Link courtesy Dave Scarlett via prosoundweb.com's Live Audio Board
http://www.digitalityworks.com/Viewers/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueID=204&PageNo=11
Link courtesy Dave Scarlett via prosoundweb.com's Live Audio Board
But wait, there's more....
From CBC, a report from the Coroner's Inquest.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stage...arts-that-didn-t-exist-witness-says-1.5082347
Link courtesy of Shane Ervin, at PSW Live Audio Board.
From CBC, a report from the Coroner's Inquest.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stage...arts-that-didn-t-exist-witness-says-1.5082347
Link courtesy of Shane Ervin, at PSW Live Audio Board.
Thank you for sharing. That was an interesting read.
The Thornton-Tomasetti report on the Indiana State Fair blowdown was hosted on the Indiana state website but search links now take you to the state fair page... but the T-T report was a stunning read. A willingness to accommodate client requests, inadequate engineering, improper assembly, fuzzy chain of authority and command pre-disaster... lots of fingers to point in many directions.
These things don't happen by accident - the potential for structural failure of any component or assembly can be modeled and predicted. The failures - and subsequent personal injuries and deaths - occur because of human factors.
The preliminary results of the coroner's inquest are out. licensing and certification recommendations are the big thing coming out of it
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/radiohead-show-inquest-reconvenes-1.5092146
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/radiohead-show-inquest-reconvenes-1.5092146
Robert
Well-Known Member
One thought that came to my mind, after dealing with the loss of a fellow crew member, was the list of witnesses and those that became involved in this investigation. We should all take note at the extent of the list and the possible liability assigned to each and every position on that crew. We should never take lightly the responsibility that we are given or underestimate the consequences of our actions. Just saying.....
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
Neither of those pieces seem to explain *why* that process took 2,922 days to come to a conclusion...
Similar threads
