I STRONGLY ADVISE EVERYONE TO READ AND LISTEN WITH CAUTION TO EVERYTHING STATED BY THE MEDIA .... I DO REALISE THAT MANY 'NEWSPAPERS SLANT/PRESENT STORIES IN A PARTICULAR WAY (OR ONLY COVER PARTICULAR STORIES IN THE FIRST PLACE) TO PANDER TO THE PREDJUDICES OF THEIR READERS (TO KEEP THEM BUYING THE PAPER) BUT ONE DOES NOT EXPECT IT OF ALL SOURCES OF OUR NEWS, WHICH CLAIM TO BE COMMITTED TO ACCURATE, IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAIR REPORTING.... Let not the TRUTH OR ACURACY INTERFERE WITH A GOOD STORY OR SENSATIONALIST HEAD-LINE! SUNDAY TIMES (April 2016) I noted in an article within this newspaper which included comments about "WEIGHT OF NUMBERS". It seems legal experts consider this attitude creates the dangers of miscarriages of justice. Almost a century ago a Lord Chief Justice warned of the "the risk, the danger, the logical fallacy" of this approach - it being all-too-easy to derive from a number of unsatisfactory accusations, if there are enough of them, an accusation which at least appears satisfactory". I cannot but observe myself that this 'style' is widespread amongst journalists - even in places where one would not expect it. They deliberately mislead, insinuate, mix in exaggerated claims from unattributed sources with a strictly limited amount of factually accurate information - 'hey presto', many casual readers swallow the story uncritically! BRUSSELS BOMBINGS (March 2016) I have just listened to a young journalist (who happened to be very close to the two bombs which went off in the airport departures area) and was lucky enough to escape intact. She apologised for taking photos (her instincts as a journalist apparently "kicked in") and her images have been widely used; she said she was not a doctor, so could do nothing! NONSENSE! If I had been there, I also not a doctor, would have gone to the AID of the injured people. I have had FIRST-AID training, so know what to do and what not to do - which has the potential to either save a life or prevent people from being permanently paralysed. The first minutes can be crucial. The world would be a better place with fewer journalists and more people trained in FIRST-AID!!!!! The EXCUSE that the world needed to see pictures of people minutes after bombs exploded, to show what terrorism does, does NOT bear close examination. Far better if MEDIA interviewed those who did try to help the injured and CREDIT that. A PARTY IN THE STREET I LIVE IN (February 2016) I 'slept' through a supposed OUT OF CONTROL HOUSE PARTY WITH HUNDREDS OF TEENAGE REVELLERS WAS CLOSED BY POLICE WHEN A MAN WAS BATTERED IN THE STREET. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468213/Police-called-hundreds-teenagers-turned-house-party-spiralled-control-man-battered-street.html#comments, It is time INTELLIGENT people exposed such RUBBISH for what it is. Alarmingly, it is not just the usual suspects, media-wise but sources which are RESPECTED! I THOUGHT they did not stoop so low. It seems I was MISTAKEN. And if one is BRAVE enough (it is daunting and intimidating to complain and relatively few can articulate their concerns) and have the TEMERITY to complain, one is met denials and claims all has been done professionally and fairly.... No the 'reporting' has not be undertaken professionally - more often through dishonesty and bullying, with the journalists acting as a "law unto themselves"...... Returning to events early one Saturday evening in February. My house is in the very road this NEWS WORTHY event took place, I'm afraid I missed it as I had fallen asleep (not being in good health, I am awake at strange hours). So missed all the fuss. I don't know how long POLICE CLOSED my road for but my wife was able to drive back to the house unhindered around the time all this was happening. My youngest son did, from his bedroom window see about 100 young people (not the exaggerated 'HUNDREDS'), a police dog (there were 2, I think, so DOGS, was strictly-speaking, correct). None of the small houses in my street could possibly accommodate hundreds of people.... Within the abbreviated report they actually say "ABOUT 100"..... Yes, Thames Valley Police STATED 2 15-YEAR-OLDS were reported for CRIMINAL DAMAGE and yes, one man was left with facial injuries (precisely what, we do not know) but BATTERED? Of course none of the journalists were there (the main picture used was taken from a house in a DIFFERENT street) across from the junction with my road. This was a SATURDAY evening. Since when was 100 people on a street, a couple of incidents of criminal damage and 'facial injuries' (I cannot but guess that if these were really severe the report would have claimed so) is NOT newsworthy!!!!!!! I was briefly a police officer in the Hertfordshire Constabulary in the early 1980s. Such an event was not 'news worthy' back then..... EXPRESS This account of the same event was EVEN more RIDICULOUS. They FALSELY claimed that the local police were OVERWHELMED. Some "terrified" local resident said it was like a "war zone" - RIDICULOUS and worse than football riots of the 1980s. RUBBISH. Apparently police had to use "attack dogs". Why the hell didn't this local, who was TERRIFIED stay indoors..... Cars have been damaged in my road before (often wing mirrors being smashed). What was all the fuss about? I recollect, as a thoughtful teenager, being surprised that SOME of the pupils at my school (which had about as mixed an intake as was possible at a state school) actually BELIEVED, as the accurate truth, what appeared in newspapers and on television! As my profession (which someone RIGHTLY commented that MOST people would find BORING and of no interest) is specialised, and already knowing how INACCURATE accounts in newspapers often are, I have never been keen to be INTERVIEWED by local or national journalists - not a question of having anything to 'hide'.... I am ENTITLED to expect anything written or broadcast about me to be ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL, not MISLEADING! If the 'reporter' knows almost nothing about what I do, then this is likely to be the case.... Why should I (or anyone else) be OBLIGED to answer questions which INSULT my intelligence..... Unfortunately, far too many people, whether journalists or professional writers, write (and broadcast) far too much about topics they have NOT researched satisfactorily and are singularly ill-equipped to pontificate upon in an authoritative way. In fact, many know almost zero about these subjects and do not begin to understand them. Sadly, much the same applies to a great of what is published in articles and even so-called scientific journals. Standards (assuming they were higher in the past before I became, in the 1970s, to understand such matters) have dropped alarmingly and this applies not just to journals and other publications "abroad" but in the UK as well. |