Though I haven't read the article yet, I'd just like to note how it seems that cases of bad journalism are on the rise. More and more, so called "reporters" and "journalists" have been given free reign to write whatever opinionated crap they want to, and have it published by their editors as if it were fact. Granted, people in the know about the subject matter can immediately tell that it's false and worthy of being ignored, but lay people don't know the difference and inherently trust their local/national newspaper/newscast/magazine, because, "they spent the time to do the research for me". It makes me wonder if there should be some sort of accountability for the authors or publishers of such lies under the pretense of truth. An individual can sue for libel or slander, but there's no recourse when a journalist is attacking history, a community, or an idea with falsehoods. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is something in place within the press community. Maybe it's just not being enforced with regards to technical stuff, because they don't have the knowledge and resources to do fact checks?
-Tim On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 08:49, Karthik Poobalasubramanian wrote: > This article from BBC pretty silly. For those who did not get a chance, the > links up on slashdot. Be sure to read the comments. 'cause some of the things > in the article was changed after it was posted. > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/0818229&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88 > > I know its a silly article and the author did not do read any of things that > happened and its pretty much bad journalism. I just couldn't sit there and > take it without sending in my thoughts to BBC. I am not sure if ignoring the > article is the best choice here so read up the article and if the factual > errors bother you send them a feedback through > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm > > Karthik > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
