The media have a tendency to fixate on the smallest aspect of a subject that will surprise readers and grab their attention.
For example, several stories have run in various publications about the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland and the almost infinitely small chance it could create a black hole and swallow up the earth.
Despite having about the same chance of destroying humanity as does eating a cheese sandwich – that is, almost none – honest scientists have refused to tell the media the chance is 0 percent.
Therefore, the media have headlined the Large Hadron Collider may destroy the world.
This was a cheap way for the media to turn an already interesting story into the story to end all stories. And it gets worse.
This trick can be used to make an interesting story out of something otherwise totally lacking substance.
For example, the Aug. 15 issue of the Press Enterprise included this headline: “No Crackdown in Lake Elsinore Area.” The story went on to say the police are not racially profiling or patrolling churches in an effort to arrest illegal aliens.
The message of the story: “Nothing Happened.”
Generally, most journalists write news articles when something does take place.
Last week, these are the headlines of the stories I wrote:
“Study shows activist-authored initiatives put city at ‘sever disadvantage’”
“Wildomar man arrested after two-year investigation”
“Film reveals secrets of adopted families”
“Temecula, Elsinore schools report rising test scores”
“Breaking the Law: Thirteen-year-olds premier film showing hardships of suburban skateboarders”
If I were to follow the technique used lately to sensationalize the stories, the headlines would read:
“Study shows activist-authored initiatives may cause black hole, swallow city”
“Wildomar man not arrested for lynching babies after two-year investigation”
“Film reveals adopted families secrets, may cause World War III”
“Temecula, Elsinore schools do not report systematic extermination of Jews”
“Breaking the Law: Thirteen-year-olds premier new film, fail to expose middle school sex slave trade”
Aren’t those headlines a lot more interesting? In addition, I could tack on a couple extra stories with hardly any extra research:
“Rumors claiming police burn churches, draw-and-quarter elderly women unfounded”
“Walt Disney not cloned in the Yorba Linda area”
“Canada not aiming arsenal of biological weapons at La Brea”
They‘re true and it seems like everybody else is doing it. Why should I refrain from doing these stories? In the media climate today I’m having increasing difficulty finding an answer.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Delete Button: A Politician's Best Friend
Media critics have praised the internet for allowing anybody to reach a global audience instantly and easily. This presents one problem; destroying the information is just as easy.
In the past, if political candidates stated something foolish – either to a newspaper reporter or in an advertisement – it would be printed on a piece of paper. No matter how badly the candidate’s supporters wished it never happened, it could be cited and criticized indefinitely.
Now, candidates can send out messages faster, cheaper and easier through blogs, and if the statement turns out to be something the candidate’s supporters regret, the delete button will do away with it.
Recently, some Sarah Palin supporters have taken advantage of this new trick. In 2006, the Alaskan branch of Eagle Forum, a nation-wide “pro-family” group, posted a questionnaire Palin filled out in a blog.
This was the address: http://eagleforumalaska. blogspot. com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate. html. Today, however, the address leads to nothing.
Last week, Debbie Joslin, the president of Eagle Forum Alaska and a Palin supporter, removed the blog.
Palin’s responses on the questionnaire were attracting too much criticism, Joslin said in a telephone interview on Monday.
“We’ve been getting… a lot of hateful remarks. You know, the usual,” she said.
Today, the only evidence it ever existed are quotations and informal citations in other people’s blogs, which are far from reliable sources.
People have been leaving “hateful remarks” on the blog because two of Palin’s answers in the questionnaire seemed to be a misstatement of facts.
Question 11 asks if the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance offends her. She stated, “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”
Critics pointed out Americans recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time in the 1890’s, which was about half a century after the last of the founding fathers died. Moreover, the phrase “under God” was added in the 1950’s.
If the blog still existed one could ask the question: should we have a vice-president so benighted to our nation’s history?
This question will not be asked. This debate will no longer take place. It has been deleted.
In the past, if political candidates stated something foolish – either to a newspaper reporter or in an advertisement – it would be printed on a piece of paper. No matter how badly the candidate’s supporters wished it never happened, it could be cited and criticized indefinitely.
Now, candidates can send out messages faster, cheaper and easier through blogs, and if the statement turns out to be something the candidate’s supporters regret, the delete button will do away with it.
Recently, some Sarah Palin supporters have taken advantage of this new trick. In 2006, the Alaskan branch of Eagle Forum, a nation-wide “pro-family” group, posted a questionnaire Palin filled out in a blog.
This was the address: http://eagleforumalaska. blogspot. com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate. html. Today, however, the address leads to nothing.
Last week, Debbie Joslin, the president of Eagle Forum Alaska and a Palin supporter, removed the blog.
Palin’s responses on the questionnaire were attracting too much criticism, Joslin said in a telephone interview on Monday.
“We’ve been getting… a lot of hateful remarks. You know, the usual,” she said.
Today, the only evidence it ever existed are quotations and informal citations in other people’s blogs, which are far from reliable sources.
People have been leaving “hateful remarks” on the blog because two of Palin’s answers in the questionnaire seemed to be a misstatement of facts.
Question 11 asks if the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance offends her. She stated, “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”
Critics pointed out Americans recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time in the 1890’s, which was about half a century after the last of the founding fathers died. Moreover, the phrase “under God” was added in the 1950’s.
If the blog still existed one could ask the question: should we have a vice-president so benighted to our nation’s history?
This question will not be asked. This debate will no longer take place. It has been deleted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
