The media and "could"

[Lyam]

I've joked with people about US media where it seems where as long as you say "according to sources" beforehand you can say any completely obvious crap and nonsense and it's accepted as truth.

Not having to reveal your sources makes it all the more handy.

Not that standards have been all that high in the past, but seems more so lately that the Aus media and certain political parties are using their own version of in the form of "could". Stick "could" in front of any outrageous claim and it will fly.

Ratings low? Not getting enough attention I wonder?

[on_one_wheel]

One comes to mind .... The Project.... According to my sources, when Channel 10 was approached about the projects breach of Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice regarding their story about firearms on October 31'st they dismissed claims of citing inaccurate and flawed statistics, the program is hiding the defence that it is not a real news program.... but we all knew that

[Westy]

The project is a T.V Show not a news program Aimed @ the 20 something Metrosexual's who think Humus is a substitute for Steak!!!!!
And it's as funny as Diorria in a wet suit

[headspace]

I boycotted the "Project" a long time ago. It's full of alleged comedians and packaged bulls..t. Have to agree with Westy on the target audience. The alleged comedians are usually about as funny as, what Westy said. It's rather typical of ten's programming though.
JD

[Usurper]

I've joked with people about US media where it seems where as long as you say "according to sources" beforehand you can say any completely obvious crap and nonsense and it's accepted as truth.

It's like a license to print bulls**t saying "according to sources", I agree.

[heeple]

I think they just write the quote first, then go ask a friend

"Hey, read this aloud to me"

Then quote the friend as a source.

Journalism solved

[coroboreeboy]

What about when the papers say things like "Police are outraged by ......drink drivers/whatever" I'm thinking,"What all Policemen, or just the cop down the road? Did they take a poll of cops to come to that conclusion? Or did they just make it up? Then too they use words like "gutted" e.g. "Doctors are gutted by..........." What does "gutted" mean anyway? A while ago, nobody got shot in a news story, they got "gunned down", though I haven't seen this for a while. Maybe they were told to be journalists not novelists.
To my mind, when the media use general terms like Police, shopkeepers, Firefighters, Ambos etc, in a quote, but don't say which ones, it's a made-up story and not to be taken seriously.

[tom604]

it could be that its the cops doing the shootings of late,,,may sound a bit wrong with a headline "police gun down girl with a knife"

[Combat_Wombat]

Love how they make out that every survey is a census. Not sure how you can say that 100% of Aussies agree with something if I was never asked. Or anyone I know for that matter.

Should go along the lines of 75% of people at flinders street station between 7-9 am are agaisnt hunting.

[Joom]

Should go along the lines of 75% of people at flinders street station between 7-9 am are agaisnt hunting.

[Westy]

I love Carl in the mornings he's



So Funny




NOT

[Warrigul]

The local editor of the paper recently quoted Gun Control Australia's figures as fact (260 stolen fireams in TAS each year when there were actually only 63 last year), ignorant lazy ****, he should move his arse and use primary sources rather than the secondary souce propaganda that GCA peddle.

I also hate the "the community is concerned", they are only concerned due to the papers fearmongering to sell more.

[Jessie]

I also hate the "the community is concerned", they are only concerned due to the papers fearmongering to sell more.

Reminds me of that Residents Against [some shooting range] website.

2 likes on Facebook or something

"residents" could be said to be overstating it