Thread: News and Reporters

No - it's not just you.

It constantly amazes me what passes as "news" these days.

G'day,

What bugs the carp out of me is how reporters and newsreaders are forgetting how to use correct grammar. They forget that "is" is singular and "are" is plural.

commercial TV reporters and newsreaders.

At least SBS get it right.

I am cynical about all forms of media in Australia. They all seem to have hidden agendas and are quite selective about their reporting particularly the privately owned media.

Many use this for political purposes by reporting only one side of an argument. The words in the report are certainly true but only part of the story which means it is distorted. The reporters say they are not influenced by their managers however I suspect those who do not pull the company line are overlooked for promotions and are possibly first out the door if a downsizing was to happen.

Some articles refer to what "he" or "she" or "they" said without any prior or post reference to that source. It seems that the article was edited to make space for an advertisement and was not checked for it's completeness or continuity.

It's all very well to hit off at kids who lack spelling or written communication skills, let's start with the media who are the first to report on the lack of skills by the kids.

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

I am cynical about all forms of media in Australia. They all seem to have hidden agendas and are quite selective about their reporting particularly the privately owned media.

Many use this for political purposes by reporting only one side of an argument. The words in the report are certainly true but only part of the story which means it is distorted. The reporters say they are not influenced by their managers however I suspect those who do not pull the company line are overlooked for promotions and are possibly first out the door if a downsizing was to happen.

Are you saying those arguments only apply to privately owned media?

Originally Posted by Waldo

What bugs the carp out of me is how reporters and newsreaders are forgetting how to use correct grammar. They forget that "is" is singular and "are" is plural.

Not only that, carp really is crap

Originally Posted by Waldo

At least SBS get it right.

That's because they are multi-Cultural

I heard a reporter say "he would of ..." once. That was enough for me, I don't listen to them any more.

As for accuracy, checking facts, and misquoting people, I used to do a bit of work for a certain government web site, which featured news articles authored by their media manager. He rang me from the pub once and dictated a story concerning an interview with a certain personality in the industry. He made up the quotes on the fly and changed them a few times before he was happy with it. I asked him "is that what X really said?" to which he replied, "that's the gist of it". So when you see people quoted in the media, take it with a grain of salt.

The purpose of privately owned News media, ie Papers, Mags, TV stations is to make money. They do this in whatever way is practical and (hopefully) lawful. That's why they don't hesitate to sensationalise headlines etc. I don't think this is cynicism, it is fact.

TermiMonster - I fully agree

Its the rare journalist that actually holds to the ideals that they spout about fair, unbiased reporting.... there are a couple, and a couple of organisations... but they are few and far between.

The rest of it is just about maximising shareholder returns.. not that I really have a problem with that, but I do wish the pretense would be dropped.

Tossers, the lot of them.

It is worse(?) here in the US, the commercial media in general seems to live in an alternate realty. Suicidal lemmings would be too kind a way to describe the commercial media these days .

I really feel sorry for people who's only source of information is the commercial media.

The world does indeed need a free press, but what we so desperately need even more is a press that reports facts rather than a constant commentary support of agendas. A bit of ethics wouldn't hurt them either.

From what I have seen of it, being a "reporter" instantly qualifies one as an expert on any subject and it amazes me that they COULD research what they report if they wanted to but they seem to be wedded to ignorance. What they think / feel defines the reality they (try to) sell...

A quote from an old sci-fi book I found *years* ago summed it up:

"Well, one of the sad lessons of life is that things aren't necessarily true just because the anchor on the evening news says they are." --Jame Retief.

It is my opinion that the "News" died as a trusted entity the day they went from being "News Organizations" to being profit centers.

Wonder why the commercial media and the pols hate the "Blogsphere"? They can't control it and they can't buy it.

I'm sure they thought that it was a wonderful opportunity to be the only source, but thanks to the Internet that has changed. Question is whether they can legislate (send men with guns) the blogsphere or buy it out - the latter isn't going to happen .

They screwed themselves and betrayed our trust. I for one welcome their fall.

Originally Posted by Clinton1

Its the rare journalist that actually holds to the ideals that they spout .

What about Maxine McKew



For those elsewhere, she was a reporter for the national broadcaster and is now running for parliment against the prime minister. She was one of the good ones.

Originally Posted by Fox3

I for one welcome their fall.

Me too, one station here, channel 7, makes their own news about things that are totally erelivent to real life.

Al

Originally Posted by Waldo

G'day,

What bugs the carp out of me is how reporters and newsreaders are forgetting how to use correct grammar. They forget that "is" is singular and "are" is plural.

commercial TV reporters and newsreaders.

At least SBS get it right.

Or should that read 'They forget that "is" are singular and "are" is plural.'
Anyone recall the nasty landslide at Thredbo in which several people died in the chalets:
1. The media dubbed Stuart Diver a 'Hero'...why?, he was the only victim to live, not a hero just a very lucky survivor.
2. Same incident, a senior Police official stated "We are having verbal communications with a person who (not whom) we believe to be alive"

In defense of journalists, though (despite my earlier post) I read a book by a journalist (about his time in Vietnam 67-8) where he said that often, journalists write a story, usually for an agency (Reuters, etc) which is onsold to various media outlets. They (the outlets) basically buy all the output from several agencies and their sub editors and editors cut the Cr** out of the actual story, mash them together and leave it in those journos names...I'm sure it still happens.

Originally Posted by TermiMonster

I read a book by a journalist (about his time in Vietnam 67-8).

Tim Bowden??