The above Ad will no longer appear after you Sign Up for Free!
Discussion in 'News' started by JohnD, Jun 16, 2012.
That is just wrong.
IATSE employees in Toronto, where scab workers are being used and following unsafe work practices which have been reported to the ministry of labour who has done nothing.
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...
So, it's fake news?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Not for lack of trying..." is what comes to mind.
Separate names with a comma.