The Media

**Ramius** · 25th July 2005, 12:23

I actually mentioned this sort of thing to the Ice Cream shop owner the other day, that I have noticed that reporting in the papers is getting very sloppy. Grammatically speaking and with tonnes of spelling mistakes. I am quite disturbed because I would expect a better service. Do this sort of thing in school and you would fail.

**James Deuce** · 25th July 2005, 12:27

Originally Posted by riffer

Nikki MacDonald's followup article was better.

I would dispute that the DomPost writers deliberately said the wrong thing, or that they were incompetent. It would appear from the second article that the DomPost motorsport writer Bernard Carpinter, who was at the track, relayed the info to them, most likely over his cellphone.

It doesn't really worry me that they use the word speedway instead of racetrack. Thee rest of the article is accurate, and to most non-motorsport fans, the use of the word speedway would be synonymous with racetrack.

At least they fixed the earlier report which said it happened in the pits.

I never said they said it deliberately. They are just too lazy to bother being competent. I would doubt VERY much that Mr Carpinter would make such a fundamental mistake as to call the event a "speedway" meeting.

This type of inaccurate reporting is the thin edge of a wedge that involves ordinary people losing personal freedoms.

**TwoSeven** · 25th July 2005, 12:27

Originally Posted by Jim2

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3355485a10,00.html

What has "speedway" got to do with Manfield? That one closing sentence makes a mockery of the rest fo the article.

I read that and thought 'dirt track' racing or something along those lines. Then I remembered that speedway is a technical term for a special type of road course where the track has banked curves rather than flat curvers. For example, both Indionapolis and Daytona park are classified as 'speedways' whereas Laguna Seca I think is classified as a road course (road circuit). Cant remember if laguna has a speedway or if its separate.

In anycase, its not a speedway given any definition as far as I am aware.

**Lou Girardin** · 25th July 2005, 12:49

Originally Posted by Jim2

I was kidding! I didn't think I'd need smilies.

I knew you were kidding, just couldn't find a friggin' smilie for it either.
Think we'll ever descend to smilies in the papers?

**James Deuce** · 25th July 2005, 12:50

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I knew you were kidding, just couldn't find a friggin' smilie for it either.
Think we'll ever descend to smilies in the papers?

One word: Yes.

**Hitcher** · 25th July 2005, 13:33

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I knew you were kidding, just couldn't find a friggin' smilie for it either.
Think we'll ever descend to smilies in the papers?

Gahhhh! Thud.

**Ixion** · 25th July 2005, 13:55

Originally Posted by Jim2

One word: Yes.

Hey, neat. then us normil guyz will be able to reed them, stead of just u stick up swotties wot can do joined up riting.

**El Dopa** · 25th July 2005, 19:58

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I knew you were kidding, just couldn't find a friggin' smilie for it either.
Think we'll ever descend to smilies in the papers?

A cable station in the UK some years ago (thankfully now defunct) used to use a 'news bunny'. This was a guy in a rabbit suit who would stand next to the newsreader, and make the appropriate gestures and actions to show an appropriate emotion for the news story being read.

'Today, 50,000 die and hundreds are made homeless by flooding in SE Asia' (ears, tail and whiskers droop, eyes downcast).

'Meanwhile, in home news, a man grows a huge leak shaped like a penis'
(bunny bounces happily, nose twitches, ears errect etc).

**Hitcher** · 25th July 2005, 20:25

Originally Posted by El Dopa

A cable station in the UK some years ago (thankfully now defunct) used to use a 'news bunny'. This was a guy in a rabbit suit who would stand next to the newsreader, and make the appropriate gestures and actions to show an appropriate emotion for the news story being read.

'Today, 50,000 die and hundreds are made homeless by flooding in SE Asia' (ears, tail and whiskers droop, eyes downcast).

'Meanwhile, in home news, a man grows a huge leak shaped like a penis'
(bunny bounces happily, nose twitches, ears errect etc).

And New Zealand's State broadcaster gets Judy Bailey to do both jobs at once. Maybe she is worth $800,000 a year after all...

**Beemer** · 26th July 2005, 11:21

Originally Posted by Ramius

I actually mentioned this sort of thing to the Ice Cream shop owner the other day, that I have noticed that reporting in the papers is getting very sloppy. Grammatically speaking and with tonnes of spelling mistakes. I am quite disturbed because I would expect a better service. Do this sort of thing in school and you would fail.

Most journalists can't spell to save themselves - and many never read the paper themselves or keep an eye on the news. There was one report recently from a meeting where the young reporter said the council was looking into making laws about youth in Asia - oops, that should have been euthanasia... I was told at journalism school that I would make a useless journalist as I could actually spell. Most papers don't have a proofreader and because the subs are often former journalists, that means many mistakes are never even picked up. I hate it too - saw some great examples the other day - "rest your wary bones" and "complimentary colours".

I'm going to risk being attacked here, but I am a working journalist

and for many years specialised in motorsport. I went out of my way to get the facts right and never had anyone complain about my stories - but then I had a genuine interest in the topic. I got a call on the weekend after the accident by a reporter who shall remain nameless. "Do you know anyone who races motocross?" I said I'd been out of the sport for a few years but told her who to contact for some names. Next question "you know a guy was killed at Manfeild?" I pointed out that Manfeild was a racing circuit, not a motocross track and asked her if she had ever been there. No, she hadn't, but she was the late reporter on that day and she had to find a new angle for the next day's paper. She must have spoken to Owen's wife, because the next day there was mention made of the fact he used to ride motocross with his son - so at least she had been listening a little.

Most journalists have little or no interest in the subjects most of them are writing about - do you think council meetings are riveting? Most of them make mistakes not so much out of laziness but because they don't know the right questions to ask and they don't have the time to do the research. They get paid crap money and work long hours, which is why I decided to work for myself - and I get to take on the work that interests me, rather than writing about boring meetings and boring people!

**Lou Girardin** · 26th July 2005, 11:42

Originally Posted by Hitcher

And New Zealand's State broadcaster gets Judy Bailey to do both jobs at once. Maybe she is worth $800,000 a year after all...

I did love that explanation of her antics by some (hopefully unemployed) PR person, "Judy emotes to give the viewers a guide as to what to feel about the items".
So why do I always laugh when I see her?

**James Deuce** · 26th July 2005, 12:16

Originally Posted by Beemer

Most journalists can't spell to save themselves - and many never read the paper themselves or keep an eye on the news. There was one report recently from a meeting where the young reporter said the council was looking into making laws about youth in Asia - oops, that should have been euthanasia... I was told at journalism school that I would make a useless journalist as I could actually spell. Most papers don't have a proofreader and because the subs are often former journalists, that means many mistakes are never even picked up. I hate it too - saw some great examples the other day - "rest your wary bones" and "complimentary colours".

I'm going to risk being attacked here, but I am a working journalist

and for many years specialised in motorsport. I went out of my way to get the facts right and never had anyone complain about my stories - but then I had a genuine interest in the topic. I got a call on the weekend after the accident by a reporter who shall remain nameless. "Do you know anyone who races motocross?" I said I'd been out of the sport for a few years but told her who to contact for some names. Next question "you know a guy was killed at Manfeild?" I pointed out that Manfeild was a racing circuit, not a motocross track and asked her if she had ever been there. No, she hadn't, but she was the late reporter on that day and she had to find a new angle for the next day's paper. She must have spoken to Owen's wife, because the next day there was mention made of the fact he used to ride motocross with his son - so at least she had been listening a little.

Most journalists have little or no interest in the subjects most of them are writing about - do you think council meetings are riveting? Most of them make mistakes not so much out of laziness but because they don't know the right questions to ask and they don't have the time to do the research. They get paid crap money and work long hours, which is why I decided to work for myself - and I get to take on the work that interests me, rather than writing about boring meetings and boring people!

Now don't get me wrong here - a lack of interest does not excuse a lack of professionalism. Once upon a time the "media" took themselves seriously enough to consider such issues as ethics and accuracy as being important in reporting the news. Reporting doesn't mean inventing, making up, or providing "details" that are wholly inaccurate.

Only geeks will get this but if a user asked for a network connection in a Microsoft server environment and I installed IPX as their network protocol I would be duly chastised for for not checking what was required and a not providing the user with what they needed.

I stand by what I said: it isn't professional to just chuck any old thing into an article like that, particularly when it involves a fatality.

**vifferman** · 26th July 2005, 12:25

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I did love that explanation of her antics by some (hopefully unemployed) PR person, "Judy emotes to give the viewers a guide as to what to feel about the items".
So why do I always laugh when I see her?

While I find her 'not unattractive', I can't watch her for very long because she nods way too much. It's one thing to introduce some head movement to make yourself less boring to watch, and quite another to be a complete noddy.

**vifferman** · 26th July 2005, 12:29

Originally Posted by Jim2

I stand by what I said: it isn't professional to just chuck any old thing into an article like that, particularly when it involves a fatality.

Oh.

I spoze it's also unprofessional for me to just 'make shit up' when I get stuck while I'm writing BoringAsHell user manuals nobody ever reads? At least it provides me with some entertainment, and it rarely causes problems (apart from that one time my boss installed my Blackadder-inspired test data on a client's site for a demo.

)